罗尔斯正义两原则的均等主义悖论

The Egalitarianist Paradox of Rawls’Two Principles of Justice

罗尔斯的正义两原则由于把“不均等”与“不义”混为一谈,将自愿自律地提倡高尚德性的差别原则当成了与自由原则相类似的强制他律的正义原则,结果落入了用德性压倒正义且由此导致不义的均等主义悖论,这集中体现在他认为从自然禀赋等偶然运气中获益是道德上不应得的见解上。由于隐约察觉到了这种悖论,他晚年拒绝把差别原则推扩到“万民法”或全球正义领域,但依然不肯纠正正义两原则的致命漏洞,结果陷入了自败困境。

John Rawls's two principles of justice confuse“inequality”and“injustice”,and regard the voluntary and self-discipline difference principle of advocating noble virtues as the compulsory and heteronomous justice principle similar to the principle of freedom.As a result,his theory of justice falls into the paradox of equalitarianism by overriding justice with virtue,mainly reflected in his view that it is morally undeserved to benefit from accidental luck such as natural endowment.Being vaguely aware of this paradox in his later years,he refuses to extend the difference principle to the“law of peoples”or global justice,but he still fails to completely correct the fatal loopholes of his two principles of justice,and finally falls into a self-defeating dilemma.