休谟式正义的环境的批判及其限度

The Criticisms of Hume's Circumstances of Justice and Its Limits

正义的环境的不同解读,得出不同的正义观,正义的作用范围也因此有所差异。罗尔斯大致遵循了正义的环境的休谟式解读,并以此为基础在社会基本结构层面建构了作为公平的正义理论;而以努斯鲍姆为代表的能力进路的正义理论家、以桑德尔为代表的共同体主义者则采取了更为激进的方案,批判和修正了休谟式正义的环境的基本内容,意图让正义的作用范围突破社会基本结构的限制。本文分析和讨论了对休谟式正义环境的以上批判及其限度,结论是正义的伦理承诺有其承受的范围,应受到休谟式正义的环境的限制,相较之下,罗尔斯式正义观更具合理性。

Different accounts of the circumstances of justice lead to different views ofjustice,and the scope ofjusticeis therefore different.Rawls srough-ly followed Hume's account of the circumstances of justice,and,based on this,constructed a theory of justice as fairness at thelevel 1of the1 basic structure ofsociety.However,Martha C.Nussbaum and Michael J.Sandel ad-opted a more radical plan,criticizing and revising the basic content of Hume's circumstances ofjustice,intending to make the scope of fjustice break throught the restrictionsof thebasic structure of society.This paper an-alyzes and discusses theabove criticisms ofHume's circumstances ofjustice and its limits.T The conclusion is that the ethical commitment of justicehas its bearing scope andshould be limited 1by Hume's circumstances ofjustice.By contrast,Rawlsianjustice is more reasonable.