共善、国家和自由—格林政治哲学研究
发布时间：2018-07-31 14:06
【摘要】：十九世纪英国唯心主义运动最重要的发起者和创立者,英国哲学家和政治哲学家格林(1836-1882),由于吸收德国观念论哲学而再造一个新的哲学,通常又被称为“新黑格尔主义”哲学家。格林所阐述的英国唯心主义政治哲学(核心是共善的政治哲学),成为当代西方新自由主义在试图调和自由主义和社群主义矛盾的过程中,所援引的最重要的理论之一。在当代西方政治哲学视域中,格林政治哲学中对个人权利和共善的包容性论证,为当代政治哲学,尤其是新自由主义,提供了某种自由主义传统之内能够容纳社群主义核心主张的论证形式。这种“权利政治”(在当代争论中主要源自康德)与“共善的政治”(强调善的生活,源于亚里士多德和黑格尔)的对立,也体现在格林的政治哲学的内在紧张中,而这种冲突最终在格林的政治概念框架中得以化解。这种化解以一种较为有张力的论证形式调和了自由主义与社群主义的争论,并恢复了自由主义的活力。本文一个重要的方面是指出,对于每个人和对于所有人的共善在“共善”概念中的歧异性。 本文并不致力于分析格林政治哲学在当代政治哲学视域中诸多问题的分殊和解答,而是深入格林的哲学文本,尽力去澄清格林的哲学和政治哲学的基本概念,最为重要的是,格林是以怎样的政治哲学概念框架去处理当时政治哲学诸多主题的。 政治哲学,作为一门规范性学科,实践哲学分支,它不同于作为经验科学的实证的政治学。格林正是从维多利亚时代最根本的问题“科学与宗教”的冲突出发,反对那种以科学的方式来建构道德哲学和政治哲学的企图,反对技术理性或科学理性对道德领域的侵蚀,对宗教的贬低,试图重建一种新的道德哲学和政治哲学,以为当时迫切的社会政治改革和宗教危机的解决提供哲学基础。 格林吸收德国观念论哲学,以“永恒意识”为根本概念,建立起他的形而上学和道德哲学,在这个体系中,个人的自我完善最终在永恒之至善中实现。而这个实现的前提则是个体相互承认的社会关系的存在。我们在如此的社会之中去追寻和实现真正的善,而这个真正的善总表现为一种“共善”,它必须在具体的历史之中去把握。这种绝对的善(永恒意识是其最终的保障)是人道德完善的目标,而国家或政治制度是这种道德完善的媒介或工具。换言之,我们所追求的“共善”是在某种追寻至善目的引导下在一定的政治制度框架下的社会中共同地去寻求自身的实现。这个善必然是一个共善,共善是每个人的也是所有人的善,这个善在获得某种普遍意义的同时也获得了现实性。 这种“共善”的政治哲学,将善看作动机与结果的统一。格林如此的这种政治哲学的建立,是以批判英国传统的经验论以及建立在经验论哲学基础上的政治哲学为前提的。格林在批判近代契约论政治哲学和功利主义政治哲学中的权利概念、并继承古典自由主义对个人权利和自由的保护的前提之下,提出“共善”的政治哲学。 “国家”和“自由”是格林政治哲学的核心主题,是格林“共善”的政治哲学的展开。格林的共善理论指出,个人不能离开社会,两者相互依存。权利既包含权利的要求也需要社会的承认,或者进而言之,社会的承认使得权利成为其所是,不存在非社会性的权利。个人将“共善”看作是自己的善和目标,并致力于如此的共善；社会则承认为了达成共善这一目标,必须保证个人的权利对每个人来说是必要的。个人对共善的承认,也正是他成为社会成员和获得公民资格的前提。自然权利在格林这里是实现道德理想和最终道德能力完善的必要条件。 在格林那里,国家是个人道德实现之工具,“国家”是最终实现“共善”和“自由”目标的凭借。政府的真正职能是保持道德生活的条件。国家或政府是促进共善的媒介或工具,它不直接提升善,而是去除道德善发展的阻碍。格林的这种国家理论和设想,对福利国家思想产生了重要影响。但我们回到格林政治哲学论证的框架中则会发现,格林政治哲学所关注的,最终是如何在吸收德国观念论政治哲学对共善和社会性之关注的基础上试图纠激进自由主义之偏。所以格林政治哲学可以看成是对德国观念论政治哲学和英国古典自由主义之综合的一种尝试,而这种综合最终是在“共善”框架下重新确立了个人消极自由的范围。 格林对自由的看法是,真正的自由便是真正的善、共善的实现。那么,在“共善”政治哲学这一框架之下,“共善”最终是否会淹没个人之善、个人“消极自由”的领地呢?这正是当代政治哲学家伯林提出“两种自由概念”区分的关键。伯林对唯心主义政治哲学可能带来极权主义后果的有理据的质疑,是否能成为对格林政治哲学的可信赖的反驳呢?我们认为,在格林的“共善”政治哲学之中,共善的生活目标与个人权利(消极自由)之间的关系的问题上,并未将个人的消极自由置于从属的地位。共善之实现最终是个人的自由和权利的实现,个人权利处于优先地位,它以保证现实的“消极自由”的实现为前提。 格林如此的政治哲学概念框架或论证模式,是德国观念论政治哲学和英国古典自由主义之综合的一次成功尝试,它构建了一种新的自由主义。对于这种新的自由主义,我们将通过分析格林的两个重要的继承者鲍桑葵和霍布豪斯的政治哲学,来进一步展现英国唯心主义政治哲学的发展。其中霍布豪斯是鲍桑葵的批评者,但他们都自称为格林的继承者,到底谁是格林的真正继承者呢?我们可以参与对这个开放的问题的讨论。在对这个问题的讨论中,我们也能看到英国唯心主义政治哲学的内在逻辑,它的优势和缺环,以及在哪个环节上被后来英国观念论的政治哲学家所发展和弥补。
[Abstract]:The most important initiator and founder of the British idealist movement in nineteenth Century, Green (1836-1882), British philosopher and political philosopher, rebuilt a new philosophy by absorbing German philosophical philosophy, usually called "Neo Hagel" philosopher. The British idealist Political Philosophy (the core of which is the core of the common good) is Green. The political philosophy of the contemporary western Neo liberalism is one of the most important theories in the process of trying to reconcile the contradictions between liberalism and communitarianism. In the perspective of contemporary western political philosophy, the inclusiveness of Green's political philosophy on individual rights and common goodness, and for contemporary political philosophy, especially Neo liberalism, is proposed. It provides a form of argument that can hold the core of Communitarianism in some liberalism tradition. This "right politics", which is mainly derived from Kant in contemporary debate and "common good politics" (emphasizing the life of good, derived from Aristotle and Hagel), is also embodied in the inner tension of Green's political philosophy. The conflict was finally resolved in the framework of Green's political concept. This solution reconciled the debate between liberalism and Communitarianism in a more tense form of argument and restored the vitality of liberalism. This article, an important aspect of this article, points out that the common goodness in the "common good" concept for everyone and for all people is the same. The opposite sex.
This article is not devoted to analyzing the differences and answers of many problems in Green's political philosophy in the perspective of contemporary political philosophy, but in depth to Green's philosophical text, trying to clarify the basic concepts of Green's philosophy and political philosophy. The most important thing is that Green deals with many political philosophies at that time with the framework of political philosophy. Thematic.
Political philosophy, as a normative subject and a branch of practical philosophy, is different from the political science of empirical science. Green, starting from the conflict of "science and religion", the most fundamental problem in the era of Vitoria, opposed the attempt to construct moral philosophy and political philosophy in a scientific way, against technical rationality or The erosion of the moral field, the demeaning of the religion, and the attempt to reconstruct a new moral philosophy and political philosophy, provide a philosophical basis for the urgent social and political reform and the solution of the religious crisis.
Green absorbs the philosophical philosophy of Germany and takes the "eternal consciousness" as the fundamental concept, and establishes his metaphysics and moral philosophy. In this system, the self perfection of the individual is finally realized in the eternal good. The premise of this realization is the existence of the individual mutual recognition of social relations. Seeking and realizing true good, and this true good always manifests as a kind of "common good", it must be grasped in the concrete history. This absolute good (eternal consciousness is the ultimate guarantee) is the goal of human moral perfection, and the state or political system is the medium or tool of this kind of moral integrity. In other words, we pursue "common". Good is to seek its own realization in a society under a certain political system under the guidance of the pursuit of the best of the best. This good is a common good, a common good is the good of everyone, and the good is achieved in a certain universal sense as well as reality.
This kind of "common good" political philosophy regards good as the unity of motive and result. The establishment of such a political philosophy by Green is based on the criticism of the traditional English empiricism and the political philosophy based on the empiricism philosophy. Green's right to criticize the political philosophy of the modern contract and the political philosophy of utilitarianism in the modern contract. Under the premise of protecting the rights and freedoms of classical liberalism, a political philosophy of "common good" is put forward.
"State" and "freedom" are the core themes of Green's political philosophy and the political philosophy of the "common good" of Green. Green's theory of common good points out that individuals can not leave society, and they are interdependent. Rights include both the demands of rights and social recognition, or in terms of social recognition that make rights as they are, There is no non social right. A person sees "common good" as a good and a goal, and is committed to such a common good. Society recognises that in order to achieve common good, it is necessary to ensure that the rights of the individual are necessary for everyone. Green's natural right is a necessary condition for the perfection of moral ideal and ultimate moral ability.
In Green, the state is a tool for the realization of personal morality. "The country" is the ultimate realization of the goal of "common good" and "freedom". The true function of the government is to maintain the conditions of moral life. The state or government is the medium or tool to promote common good. It is not a direct promotion of good, but a hindrance to moral good development. This is the case of Green. The national theory and imagination have an important influence on the thought of the welfare state. But when we go back to the framework of Green's political philosophy, we will find that the focus of Green's political philosophy is how to rectify the radical liberalism on the basis of absorbing the attention of the German idealist political philosophy to the common good and the sociality. So Green Political philosophy can be regarded as an attempt to integrate the German idealist political philosophy and the British classical liberalism, which ultimately reestablishes the scope of the individual's negative freedom under the framework of "common good".
Green's view of freedom is that true freedom is the true good and the realization of common good. Then, under the framework of the political philosophy of "common good", will the "common good" eventually drown the individual's good and the territory of the individual "negative freedom"? This is the key to the distinction between the "two concepts of freedom" by the contemporary political philosopher Berlin. Does Lin challenge the rationalism that the idealist political philosophy may bring to the totalitarian consequences? Can it be a trustworthy rebuttal to Green's political philosophy? We think that in Green's "common good" political philosophy, the relationship between the common good and the personal rights (negative self) does not eliminate the individual. The realization of the freedom and rights of the individual is ultimately the realization of the freedom and rights of the individual. The individual rights are in the priority position, which is precondition for the realization of the reality of "negative freedom".
The conceptual framework or model of Green's political philosophy is a successful attempt of German idealist political philosophy and the integration of British classical liberalism. It builds a new liberalism. For this new liberalism, we will analyze the politics of Green's two important successors, abalone and hebhouse. Philosophy, to further demonstrate the development of British idealist political philosophy. Hobhouse is a critic of abalone, but they all call themselves the successor of Green. Who is Green's real successor? We can participate in the discussion of this open question. In the discussion of this question, we can also see the British only The inherent logic of idealistic political philosophy, its advantages and disadvantages, and in which link it was developed and compensated by later British ideological political philosophers.
【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D0
[Abstract]:The most important initiator and founder of the British idealist movement in nineteenth Century, Green (1836-1882), British philosopher and political philosopher, rebuilt a new philosophy by absorbing German philosophical philosophy, usually called "Neo Hagel" philosopher. The British idealist Political Philosophy (the core of which is the core of the common good) is Green. The political philosophy of the contemporary western Neo liberalism is one of the most important theories in the process of trying to reconcile the contradictions between liberalism and communitarianism. In the perspective of contemporary western political philosophy, the inclusiveness of Green's political philosophy on individual rights and common goodness, and for contemporary political philosophy, especially Neo liberalism, is proposed. It provides a form of argument that can hold the core of Communitarianism in some liberalism tradition. This "right politics", which is mainly derived from Kant in contemporary debate and "common good politics" (emphasizing the life of good, derived from Aristotle and Hagel), is also embodied in the inner tension of Green's political philosophy. The conflict was finally resolved in the framework of Green's political concept. This solution reconciled the debate between liberalism and Communitarianism in a more tense form of argument and restored the vitality of liberalism. This article, an important aspect of this article, points out that the common goodness in the "common good" concept for everyone and for all people is the same. The opposite sex.
This article is not devoted to analyzing the differences and answers of many problems in Green's political philosophy in the perspective of contemporary political philosophy, but in depth to Green's philosophical text, trying to clarify the basic concepts of Green's philosophy and political philosophy. The most important thing is that Green deals with many political philosophies at that time with the framework of political philosophy. Thematic.
Political philosophy, as a normative subject and a branch of practical philosophy, is different from the political science of empirical science. Green, starting from the conflict of "science and religion", the most fundamental problem in the era of Vitoria, opposed the attempt to construct moral philosophy and political philosophy in a scientific way, against technical rationality or The erosion of the moral field, the demeaning of the religion, and the attempt to reconstruct a new moral philosophy and political philosophy, provide a philosophical basis for the urgent social and political reform and the solution of the religious crisis.
Green absorbs the philosophical philosophy of Germany and takes the "eternal consciousness" as the fundamental concept, and establishes his metaphysics and moral philosophy. In this system, the self perfection of the individual is finally realized in the eternal good. The premise of this realization is the existence of the individual mutual recognition of social relations. Seeking and realizing true good, and this true good always manifests as a kind of "common good", it must be grasped in the concrete history. This absolute good (eternal consciousness is the ultimate guarantee) is the goal of human moral perfection, and the state or political system is the medium or tool of this kind of moral integrity. In other words, we pursue "common". Good is to seek its own realization in a society under a certain political system under the guidance of the pursuit of the best of the best. This good is a common good, a common good is the good of everyone, and the good is achieved in a certain universal sense as well as reality.
This kind of "common good" political philosophy regards good as the unity of motive and result. The establishment of such a political philosophy by Green is based on the criticism of the traditional English empiricism and the political philosophy based on the empiricism philosophy. Green's right to criticize the political philosophy of the modern contract and the political philosophy of utilitarianism in the modern contract. Under the premise of protecting the rights and freedoms of classical liberalism, a political philosophy of "common good" is put forward.
"State" and "freedom" are the core themes of Green's political philosophy and the political philosophy of the "common good" of Green. Green's theory of common good points out that individuals can not leave society, and they are interdependent. Rights include both the demands of rights and social recognition, or in terms of social recognition that make rights as they are, There is no non social right. A person sees "common good" as a good and a goal, and is committed to such a common good. Society recognises that in order to achieve common good, it is necessary to ensure that the rights of the individual are necessary for everyone. Green's natural right is a necessary condition for the perfection of moral ideal and ultimate moral ability.
In Green, the state is a tool for the realization of personal morality. "The country" is the ultimate realization of the goal of "common good" and "freedom". The true function of the government is to maintain the conditions of moral life. The state or government is the medium or tool to promote common good. It is not a direct promotion of good, but a hindrance to moral good development. This is the case of Green. The national theory and imagination have an important influence on the thought of the welfare state. But when we go back to the framework of Green's political philosophy, we will find that the focus of Green's political philosophy is how to rectify the radical liberalism on the basis of absorbing the attention of the German idealist political philosophy to the common good and the sociality. So Green Political philosophy can be regarded as an attempt to integrate the German idealist political philosophy and the British classical liberalism, which ultimately reestablishes the scope of the individual's negative freedom under the framework of "common good".
Green's view of freedom is that true freedom is the true good and the realization of common good. Then, under the framework of the political philosophy of "common good", will the "common good" eventually drown the individual's good and the territory of the individual "negative freedom"? This is the key to the distinction between the "two concepts of freedom" by the contemporary political philosopher Berlin. Does Lin challenge the rationalism that the idealist political philosophy may bring to the totalitarian consequences? Can it be a trustworthy rebuttal to Green's political philosophy? We think that in Green's "common good" political philosophy, the relationship between the common good and the personal rights (negative self) does not eliminate the individual. The realization of the freedom and rights of the individual is ultimately the realization of the freedom and rights of the individual. The individual rights are in the priority position, which is precondition for the realization of the reality of "negative freedom".
The conceptual framework or model of Green's political philosophy is a successful attempt of German idealist political philosophy and the integration of British classical liberalism. It builds a new liberalism. For this new liberalism, we will analyze the politics of Green's two important successors, abalone and hebhouse. Philosophy, to further demonstrate the development of British idealist political philosophy. Hobhouse is a critic of abalone, but they all call themselves the successor of Green. Who is Green's real successor? We can participate in the discussion of this open question. In the discussion of this question, we can also see the British only The inherent logic of idealistic political philosophy, its advantages and disadvantages, and in which link it was developed and compensated by later British ideological political philosophers.
【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D0
【共引文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 郑春元;;《聊斋志异》中仙人小说的喜剧色彩[J];蒲松龄研究;2012年01期
2 李煜婕;;试论和谐社会中经济法的发展[J];阿坝师范高等专科学校学报;2006年02期
3 向宝云;卢衍鹏;;生存的艰难与平凡的伟大——简评傅恒的长篇小说《天地平民》[J];阿坝师范高等专科学校学报;2006年04期
4 张富文;;马克思人本思想探析——以《共产党宣言》为中心的考察[J];阿坝师范高等专科学校学报;2009年01期
5 刘莎莎;;从《爱弥儿》中探究卢梭的生命教育理念[J];阿坝师范高等专科学校学报;2009年04期
6 林颐;;“自我”的两个维度——读丹尼尔·贝尔《社群主义及其批评者》[J];阿坝师范高等专科学校学报;2011年03期
7 项志友;马珊;;论法治的人性基础——兼论中西人性观对法治的影响[J];安徽大学法律评论;2002年02期
8 王圣扬;董琼;;论刑事诉讼中的控辩平衡原则[J];安徽大学法律评论;2005年02期
9 王凤涛;;迈向回应社会的法——精神慰藉困境与“常回家看看”入法[J];安徽大学法律评论;2011年01期
10 黄云波;;未遂犯的处罚根据——兼谈犯罪的本质[J];安徽大学法律评论;2011年02期
相关会议论文 前10条
1 顾晓伟;;历史学的中庸之道:融通“历史解释”与“历史表现”的尝试——重思“亨佩尔-德雷论战”的现代意义[A];第八届北京大学史学论坛论文集[C];2012年
2 肖能;;学术权利与行政权力:大学治理的核心范畴——以平衡论为视角[A];通过章程的大学治理[C];2011年
3 黎秀蓉;;“李约瑟之谜”的博弈论解读[A];第十一届中国制度经济学年会论文汇编（上）[C];2011年
4 宫睿;;作为理性的批判的“启蒙”——对康德“启蒙”思想的一个阐释[A];科学发展：社会管理与社会和谐——2011学术前沿论丛（上）[C];2011年
5 王艳秀;;现代化及其背反——论道德困境产生的根源[A];繁荣学术 服务龙江——黑龙江省第二届社会科学学术年会优秀论文集（上册）[C];2010年
6 王燕;;当代詈语的嬗变[A];黑龙江省文学学会2011年学术年会论文集[C];2011年
7 刘月岭;;康德意志自由的三重境界[A];“第二届中国伦理学青年论坛”暨“首届中国伦理学十大杰出青年学者颁奖大会”论文集[C];2012年
8 陶锋;;丑与美的变奏——阿多诺论现代艺术[A];中央美术学院青年艺术批评奖获奖论文集（2011年）[C];2012年
9 陈屹立;;惩罚性赔偿的根据与适用:法经济学观点[A];2006年度（第四届）中国法经济学论坛会议论文集[C];2006年
10 魏建;宋艳锴;;刑罚威慑理论:过去、现在和未来——刑罚的经济学分析[A];2006年度（第四届）中国法经济学论坛会议论文集[C];2006年
相关博士学位论文 前10条
1 丁宇飞;企业国有资产管理体制的法律探索[D];华东政法大学;2010年
2 张玉堂;边沁功利主义分析法学研究[D];华东政法大学;2010年
3 夏菲;论英国警察权的变迁[D];华东政法大学;2010年
4 晋入勤;企业国有产权交易法律制度创新论[D];华东政法大学;2010年
5 许青松;间接正犯研究[D];华东政法大学;2010年
6 郑现U，
本文编号：2155823
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/shekelunwen/zhengzx/2155823.html
