通过探讨罗尔斯与哈贝马斯之争 ,人们可以考察当代公共伦理中理想主义模式还有哪几种可能性空间。本文介绍了二人的争论 ,揭示了他们各自的规范基础论证方式 ,并由此揭示了他们的主要分歧 :哈贝马斯的目的论倾向与罗尔斯的反目的论立场 ;哈贝马斯的“高级”交往理性预设与罗尔斯的基本理性预设 ;哈贝马斯的民主程序取向与罗尔斯的自由主义的实质限度取向。本文的结论是 :哈贝马斯比起罗尔斯更具有乌托邦色彩 ,并因此而误解了罗尔斯理论的一些重要考虑 By examining the dispute between Rawls and Habermas, one can examine the possibilities of the idealist model in contemporary public ethics. This article introduces the two debates and reveals their respective normative ways of argumentation and thus reveals their main disagreements: Habermas’s teleological tendencies and Rawls’s counter-teleological stance; Habermas The prepositions of “senior” communicative rationality and Rawls’ basic rational presuppositions; the Habermas’s democratic procedural orientation and Rawls’s substantive limit orientation. The conclusion of this paper is that Habermas is more Utopian than Rawls, and misunderstands some important considerations of Rawls’s theory