论文部分内容阅读
人们批评罗尔斯(Rawls)的正义论,说它要求把诸如收入和财富这样的基本生活要素纳入分配过程,从而使最少受惠者的利益得到最大的改善,就是说,它不管是否“每个人造出适合自己睡的床”。①正如德沃京(Dwokin)所指出的那样,正是这种理论,依据基本生活品的公平分配,才是“有同情心的企图而冷漠的馈赠”。本文认为,“幸运的平等主义者们”——正如安德森(ElizabethAnderson)猛烈攻击的那样——他们忽略了罗尔斯理论的两个基本特征:在分配正义中根据“纯粹程序正义”所起的作用;调节的正义和分配的正义之间的区别。当人们考虑这些特征时,罗尔斯的理论比“幸运的平等主义”看起来更为合理。
People criticize Rawls’s theory of justice, claiming that it requires that basic living elements such as income and wealth be included in the distribution process so that the benefits of the least beneficiaries are most greatly improved, that is, it does not matter whether or not “ Personal create a bed for their own sleep. ” As Dwokin points out, it is this theory, based on the equitable distribution of basic daily necessities, a “indifferent gift of sympathetic attempts.” The article argues that the “lucky egalitarians” - as violently attacked Elizabeth Anderson - overlook two fundamental traits of Rawls’s theory of “pure procedural justice” in distributive justice Role; the difference between regulated justice and assigned justice. Rawls’s theory seems more reasonable than “fortunate egalitarianism” when one considers these traits.