论文部分内容阅读
2015年5月初,《文史哲》编辑部举办了“‘性本善’还是‘性本恶’:儒学与自由主义的对话”人文高端论坛,这组笔谈就是在当时发言基础上撰写的。萧功秦批评儒家过于乐观的人性论预设强化了道德建构主义思维,而当代中国自由主义与新左派学人仍在继承这种“道德理想国”的乌托邦传统。方朝晖则指出,以性善论为儒家人性论的主流,并不符合历史事实;此外,西方历史上主张君主专制的学者多主张人性恶,而主张自由民主制度的学者则倾向于人性善。高全喜认为,就政治事务(即如何构建一个正义的社会制度)而言,性恶预设要比性善预设更有助于限制公权力私用;儒家有必要从人性论(特别是性善论)的一竿子到底的逻辑定式中走出来,自由主义则应当更加包容中国传统。这是儒学现代转型与自由主义进一步扎根当代中国的必由之路。谢文郁则提出权利政治(西方宪政)与责任政治(儒家仁政)的区分,指出:前者诉诸宪法和法律规定并保护公民基本权利,其瓶颈在于难以驾驭不计社会后果的权利意识;后者强调社会成员责任意识的培养,但不明文规定哪怕已经得到公认的基本权利,权利难免以责任的名义遭到践踏。未来中国政治必须拥有充分而平衡的责任意识和权利意识。
In early May 2015, the Editorial Department of “Literature, History and Philosophy” organized a dialogue entitled “Nature and Goodness” or “Nature and Wickedness: A Dialogue between Confucianism and Liberalism.” The High-level Forum on Humanities was written based on the speeches made at that time. Xiao Gong-qin’s critique of Confucianism’s overly optimistic humanistic hypothesis reinforces moral constructivism, and contemporary Chinese liberalism and neo-left scholars continue to inherit the utopian tradition of this “moral ideal state.” Fang Zhaohui pointed out that taking the theory of goodness as the mainstream of the Confucian theory of human nature does not accord with historical facts. In addition, scholars advocating monarchy in the Western history mostly advocate evil of human nature while those advocating liberal democracy favor human nature. Gao Quanxii thinks that in terms of political affairs (that is, how to build a just social system), presuppositions of sexuality and evil are more conducive to limiting the private use of public power than presumption of goodness; it is necessary for Confucianism to change from the theory of human nature (especially sexism) As soon as the pole of a logic comes out, liberalism should be more inclusive of Chinese tradition. This is the only way for the modern transformation and liberalism of Confucianism to take root further in contemporary China. Xie Wenyu put forward the distinction between right politics (western constitutionalism) and responsible politics (Confucian benevolent government). He pointed out: The former resorts to constitutional and legal provisions and protects the basic rights of citizens. The bottleneck is that it is difficult to control the awareness of rights without regard to social consequences. The latter emphasizes that social Member awareness of responsibility training, but not expressly provided that even if it has been recognized as a fundamental right, the inevitable right to responsibility in the name of being trampled. In the future, Chinese politics must have a full and balanced sense of responsibility and rights.