| The pluralism of value proposed by Berlin caused the internal crisis of liberalism as well as the dilemma and contradiction of pluralism itself and the contradiction between the two,which became the "Berlin problem" that scholars cannot avoid later.In the age of multiple values,how to construct and maintain the political order,especially how to deal with the relationship between "multiple" and "unary",Rawls and Dworkin had a fundamental disagreement.This difference in value standpoint led them to choose different theoretical paths.Rawls admitted that values were irreducible and conflicted.In order to eliminate such conflicts,he finally turned to "overlapping consensus".Dworkin does not believe that there is fundamental conflict between values,so he needs to answer why there is no conflict between values,and finally moves towards the unity of value.Both Rawls’ and Dworkin’s theories have a tendency against foundationalism,and also absorb the coordination factor in the coherence theory.The difference lies in that the constructivism created by Rawls acknowledges that "foundation" is inevitable and tries to relieve its responsibility of proof through "procedure".He tries to obtain the objectivity of theory by using pure thought experiment as the starting point of dynamic reflective reasoning and reflective equilibrium as the starting point of contract reasoning.Rawls opposed foundationalism,but his approach was closer to foundationalism,so that scholars called him a moderate foundationalist.Dworkin’s method is more inclined to the coherence theory,and his unity theory of value and law are integrated through the coherence theory.In the field of legal interpretation,on the one hand,Dworkin holds that there is a "right answer" to law.Judges are not creating law,but discovering it.On the other hand,it allows judges to interpret the law constructively.This tension between objectivity and constructiveness makes his theory discordant.In order to reconcile the contradiction between the two,Dworkin’s overall strategy is to demonstrate that judges’ conclusions based on constructive interpretation have some sense of objectivity by shifting the meaning of objectivity.In Law’s Empire,he understood objectivity as the uncompromising principle of a judge’s inner conscience or morality;In Justice for Hedgehogs,he removes the meaning of the concept of objectivity by asserting the independence of ethical values and acknowledging the flaws in his earlier views on the relationship between law and morality.Finally,he turned the law over to political morality,making his theory more consistent in both the fields of value and law. |
