| Based on the discussion of meta-philosophical issues, the present paper aims to present a critical research of J. Rawls' liberalist political philosophy, revelation of its limitations, and absorption of its ideas valuable to us. This is supposed to provide mental resources for the construction of China's value system on the basis of pluralized and divided profits.The present research is focused on both the central views of Rawls' classical works and the differences between Rawls' ideas and those of such famous western scholars as Nozick, Hayek, Habermas and Maclntyre, aiming to carry out a profound study on the criticism of Rawls' liberalist political philosophy, which are posed from different angles by western academic circles. From Marxist philosophical viewpoints, the present author tries to present a re-understanding and handling of the disputes related to political philosophy and meta-philosophy, which are mainly as follows: freedom and equality, evolutionary rationalism and constructive rationalism, fact and value, and the relations between individuals and society. This will help us to reveal the standpoints and views of Marxism, and its analytic methods. Meanwhile, analyses and comments themselves are an indication of our participation in the arguments of western political philosophy. In the present paper, our study on Rawls' liberal political philosophy is carried out from the following five aspects.Part one is concerned with Rawls' original contractualism and its significance for philosophical methodology, which is based on the recognition of the limitations of the fictitious hypothesis in his original contractualism. On one hand, we hold that Rawls' philosophical design of original position, esp. of the veil of ignorance, is a simplified proof, which bears universal importance in methodology. It is a way for public reflection and self-clarification, a device of mental experiment, a rational analytic procedure for the demonstration of the rationality of values, and a fairly effective construction of public ration that will help to get rid of relativism, skepticism, and nihilism in the realm of values. On the other hand, as a contemporary form of dialectics, Rawls' reflective equilibrium is an attempt to direct dialectics towards positivism and empiricism, which is of methodological significance in discovering social value and meaning, and proving the reasonableness of value judgment. In the second part, the superiority of freedom and equality in social and economic fields is of our major concern. Two conclusions have been drawn in the present paper. 1) Rawls' view of equality is up to now the most thoroughgoing one, and the most delicate in its design, which attempts to fully overcome the arbitrary influence of natural and social contingent factors on human beings, to realize fairness and equality of opportunities, and to take difference principles as a compensation for the imbalance caused by natural and social contingent factors. Thus, it bears ideological value in equality and humanity. 2) We hold that the vital reason for the differences between Nozick's theory of rights and Rawls' equalitarianism distribution theory lie in how to view the issues related to our native endowments. In Rawls' opinion, our native endowments are randomly distributed, and should be taken as a decisive factor in distribution. While Nozick argues that native endowments are authorized individual asset, and their products are equally authorized.Their viewpoints are one-sided. Our native endowments, in fact, should be authorized to both individuals and society. This concept of dual rights is a reasonable settlement to the distribution disputes between Nozick's freedom and Rawls' equalitarianism. It can also be taken as the basis for achieving equality and upholding the unity of efficiency and fairness in the market economy. This standpoint can be taken as an outstanding contribution of the present paper. The present essay also provides a theory of rights for the discussion of the relationships between f...
|
PDF Full Text Request