罗尔斯的正义理论

BBC Sounds，音乐、广播、播客。

BBC Sounds, music, radio, podcasts.

感谢您下载《我们的时代》这一集。

Thanks for downloading this episode of In Our Time.

我们的网站上提供了与本集配套的阅读书单，您可以通过在Twitter上关注BBC In Our Time来获取我们节目的最新资讯。

There's a reading list to go with it on our website, and you can get news about our programs if you follow us on Twitter at BBC In Our Time.

希望您喜欢本节目。

I hope you enjoyed the program.

你好。

Hello.

约翰·罗尔斯的《正义论》被称为二十世纪最具影响力的政治哲学著作。

A theory of justice by John Rawls has been called the most influential book in twentieth century political philosophy.

罗尔斯（1921-2002）结合自己在二战中的经历，认为战后有机会建立一个以个人自由和公平机会平等为基础的新社会。

Rawls, 1921 to 2002, drew on his own experience in World War two and saw the chance in its aftermath to build a new society founded on personal liberty and fair equality of opportunity.

而在这样一个公正的社会中，虽然可能存在不平等，但罗尔斯的激进观点是：这些不平等必须最有利于最弱势群体，而非最富有的人。

And while in that just society there could be inequalities, Rawls' radical idea was that those inequalities must be of the greatest advantage, not to the richest, but to the worst off.

与我一同讨论罗尔斯正义理论的有：华威大学哲学教授法比安娜·彼得、约克大学政治哲学教授马丁·奥尼尔，以及牛津大学巴布拉克政府学院和沃尔夫森学院的阿尔弗雷德·兰德克价值观与公共政策教授乔纳森·沃尔夫。

With me to discuss Rawls' theory of justice are Fabianne Peter, professor of philosophy at the University of Warwick, Martin O'Neill, professor of political philosophy at the University of York, and Jonathan Wolfe, the Alfred Landecker professor of values and public policy at the Babatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, and fellow Wolfson College.

让我们从你开始，马丁。

Let's start with you, Martin.

你能简要介绍一下他的背景和童年吗？

Can you give us some brief notes about his background, his youth?

当然。

Sure.

罗尔斯于1921年出生于马里兰州巴尔的摩，出身于一个富裕家庭。

So Rawls was born in 1921 in Baltimore, Maryland to quite an affluent family.

他的父亲是一名律师。

His father was lawyer.

他有五个兄弟，或许他童年最值得注意的事件是，他的两个弟弟因感染了他传染的疾病而在幼年时夭折。

He was one of five boys, and I suppose the perhaps the most notable incident of his childhood was that two of his younger brothers died in childhood from infections that they'd actually contracted from Rawls himself.

因此，似乎正是这种早年形成的经历，让他深刻体会到好运与厄运的纯粹偶然性，以及我们生活中许多方面其实都取决于远超我们控制的因素。

So it seems as if he with this formative experience very early in his life, he had this sense of of the sheer arbitrariness of of good or bad luck and the way that so many features of our lives really just come down to factors well beyond our our control.

随后，他前往普林斯顿大学学习。

He then went on to Princeton where he studied.

由于美国加入第二次世界大战，他加速完成了学业，并以士兵身份加入了美国陆军。

He did an accelerated degree given the, The US entry into World War two, and he joined the US Army as a private.

因此，他没有像一些普林斯顿的同学那样寻求军官委任。

So he didn't take the route that some of his fellow Princeton men were doing of looking for officer commissions.

他作为一名普通士兵参军，在太平洋战场的菲律宾和新几内亚作战，甚至一度乘坐军用列车经过广岛轰炸后的废墟。

He he joined up as a an ordinary soldier and, fought in the in The Pacific during World War two, in The Philippines and in New Guinea, and, ended up actually at one point on a on a troop train going through Hiroshima just after the bombing.

战争，我认为，对他的影响是

The war, I think, had a cont

他在战争期间能继续学习吗？

Was he able to continue studying while he was in the war?

他刚完成他在普林斯顿的学业。

So he'd he'd just finished his, his Princeton degree.

那是一个加速完成的学位。

That had been accelerated.

战后，他的计划其实是成为一名圣公会神职人员。

And his plan actually after the war was that he would enter the Episcopalian priesthood.

这就是他原本打算要做的事。

That's what he thought he was gonna do.

但战争的经历彻底改变了他的人生。

But the experience of the war completely changed his life.

他在战争期间失去了信仰。

He lost his faith over the course of the war.

我认为，一方面，目睹许多朋友和战友牺牲而自己幸存下来，这种巨大的痛苦让他难以承受；另一方面，了解到大屠杀和纳粹政权的全部邪恶，也让他失去了对历史中存在神圣计划或神意终将主导世界的信念。

Both, I think, the sense that the sheer difficulty of seeing some of his friends and comrades killed when he survived, I think, was very difficult for him, but also learning of the the full evil of of the Holocaust and the the evil of the Nazi regime, I think, made him him lose his his faith that there was any divine plan in history or that divine providence was going to work its way in the world.

因此，我认为到战争结束时，劳尔斯已强烈意识到教会不再适合他，他必须将正义的事业视为人类自身在世间必须创造的东西。

So I think at by the end of the war, Rules had this very vivid sense that the church wasn't going to be for him, and instead, he had to think about the project of justice as something that human beings themselves would have to make in the world.

我们不能依赖神意，而必须由人们共同创造它。

We couldn't trust in in divine providence, but instead, it had to be something that people together created.

劳尔斯主要在美国工作。

Well, Rauls is working mainly in The USA.

现在有个大问题要问你。

Now here's a big one for you.

你能告诉我们当时在美国发生的四五件重大的政治和社会事件吗？

Can you tell us the four or five major political and social events that were going on in his in his in videos in The USA?

我相信你可以说出来。

I'm sure you can

能做到。

do that.

这是一个非常直接的问题。

They go they're very, very straightforward question.

所以，战后，罗尔斯借助退伍军人法案重返普林斯顿大学攻读博士学位。

So, well, I mean, after the war so what Rawls does, he goes back on on the, thanks to the GI Bill, he goes back to do a PhD then at Princeton.

所以，这是发生的一件大事——你得以重返校园。

So that's one big thing that's happening that you get back

一个免疫社会？那有哪些大事？

an immune society, what are the big things?

所以，你有了这种扩张，我认为伴随着新政，美国进入了一个更加平等的社会时期，机会得到了扩展。

Well, so you get that expan so I suppose with the New Deal, you get this period where The US is heading towards a somewhat more equal society, where you get that expansion of opportunity.

在他六十年代教学的时候，我不确定是否有四五个问题，但我觉得有两件事尤为突出：一是越南战争，显然在背景中持续进行；二是民权运动，以及围绕非裔美国人待遇和美国如何成为一个更具包容性社会的问题。

At the time that he's teaching then through the sixties, I guess the I don't know about four or five issues, but I suppose two things that loom very large are the Vietnam War, obviously, is going on in the background, and also the the civil rights movement and issues around the treatment of African Americans and the the how how The US can can become a more inclusive society.

在罗尔斯以学术语言探讨正义的同时，这些背景事件都在发生。

That's all going on in the background at the time that Rawls is writing in an academic register about justice.

这能否被描述为一个动荡而相当混乱的社会，正在寻找一条清晰的出路？

Could it be described as turbulent and con rather confused society that was looking for a clear way through?

我认为确实存在大量的动荡。

I think there's certainly a a large amount of turbulence.

我认为在动荡之下，还有一种进步的感觉。

I think there's also, underlying that, a sense of progress.

有一种信心存在。

There's some sense of confidence.

人们认为，在战争和新政之后，这个社会至少正在正视其国内的一些问题，并可能正朝着成为一个更加平等的社会迈进。

There's a thought that in the wake of the the war, in the wake of the New Deal, that this is a society that's actually facing up to to some of its domestic problems, at least, and and, you know, might be moving towards becoming a more equal society.

我认为那个阶段有一种自信，这种自信后来可能消失了。

And I think that there's a kind of confidence at that stage that maybe disappears later on.

谢谢。

Thank you.

乔·沃尔夫，我们现在来谈谈他的工作的各个方面，从功利主义开始。

Joe Wolfe, let's let's go through aspects of his of his work now, starting with utilitarianism.

功利主义在他的思想发展中占据什么地位？

What What place did that have in the development of his ideas?

首先，请告诉大家功利主义是什么，然后说明它在他的观点中占什么位置。

First of all, tell people what it is, and then say what place it had in his views.

功利主义是一种由杰里米·边沁系统化或提出的理论。

Utilitarianism is a theory really systematized or introduced by Jeremy Bentham.

边沁的思想是，政府和每个人的责任都是追求能带来最大多数人最大幸福的行动。

And the thought from from Bentham Bentham is that the duty of governments and you as an individual is to pursue the action that will bring about the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

这就是功利主义的口号：社会应当实现最大多数人的最大幸福。

So that is the utilitarian slogan, society should bring about the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

而这一理念更具体的体现是，我们需要对善与恶进行一种成本效益分析。

And the way that is cashed out in a bit more detail is that we need to do a type of cost benefit analysis of the good and the bad.

实际上，就是分析任何行为所带来的快乐与痛苦、幸福与不幸。

In fact, the happiness and unhappiness or pleasure and pain that any action will bring about.

作为个人或社会，我们的责任是促成一种状态，使快乐超过痛苦、幸福超过不幸的净余额最大化。

And our duty as an individual or as a society is to bring about the state of affairs that has the greatest balance of pleasure over pain or happiness over unhappiness.

因此，这是一种最大化观点，认为我们应当在某种意义上让社会尽可能幸福。

So it's a maximizing view that says we should, in a sense, make society as happy as possible.

基于此，你可以看出这是一种非常有吸引力的理论，你可能会想，政府除了这样做之外还应该做什么呢？

And on that basis, you can see it's a very appealing theory that you might think what else should government do other than

你如何衡量这一点？

How do you measure this?

这是一个每个伟大的功利主义者都设法回避、而非直接应对的问题。

Well, that is a question that every great utilitarian has managed to duck rather than address directly.

你也是回避者之一。

You're be part of the duckers.

嗯，这并不是我的理论，理论。

Well, it's it's not my theory, theory.

所以谢天谢地，不是。

So thankfully no.

所以这是一个关于如何衡量的非常困难的问题。

So it is a very difficult question about how you measure.

这非常重要，因为如果你在聚合并最大化某种东西，你就必须对其进行量化。

And it's very important because if you're aggregating something and maximizing it, you have to quantify it.

这在现代经济学中也一定程度上是个问题，目前有一些技术性解决方案，比如通过偏好满足和测量人们愿意承担的风险来衡量。

And this is a problem that one has in modern economics to some degree as well, and there are technical solutions around preference satisfaction and measuring the gambles that people would take.

但对于边沁和约翰·斯图尔特·密尔来说，他们并没有对此进行任何详细的探讨。

But for Bentham and John Stuart Mill, they they really didn't address that in any detail.

所以，仅仅因为这场关于他思想的对话刚开始，我们就把功利主义称为一个支柱或一个步骤，不管怎么说。

So just to just because the start of this conversation about his work about his work, we've got utilitarianism as all we called it a pillar or a step, whatever it is.

另一个是直觉主义。

And the other is inch intuitionism.

今天早上真是各种‘主义’层出不穷。

Lots of isms about this morning.

我们对他关于直觉主义的观点了解多少？

What what do we know about his view of intuitionism?

在《正义论》的早期章节中，罗尔斯提出了功利主义与直觉主义之间的这种对立。

In the early sections of A Theory of Justice, Rule sets up this type of opposition between utilitarianism and intuitionism.

正如我们所见，功利主义是一种高度原则化的观点。

So as we've seen, utilitarianism is a highly principled view.

它为公共政策提供了一套明确的决策程序，使不同的人能够尝试计算并得出相同或不同的结果，并提供了一种公共问责原则。

It gives you really a decision procedure for public policy, and it allows different people to try to calculate and come up with the same or different results and gives a type of principle of public accountability.

然而，功利主义的问题在于，按照罗尔斯的说法，它忽视了个人的独立性。

The problem with utilitarianism, though, is that in Rawls' phrase, it ignores the separateness of persons.

也就是说，如果一个人受苦，而另一个人获得的利益超过了前者所受的痛苦，只要我们能衡量这一点，就应该继续推进。

That is, if one person suffers and another benefits more than the other person suffers, if we can measure this, then we should go ahead.

因此，它完全不关注个人权利。

So it doesn't pay any attention to individual rights.

因此，如果社会以损害某个群体利益的方式最大化幸福，

And so if society would maximize happiness in a way that is detrimental to one group's interests.

那只是运气不好。

That's just bad luck.

所以，尽管功利主义非常有原则，但它可能带来反直觉的后果。

So although utilitarianism is very principled, it can give us counterintuitive consequences.

而直觉主义，

And intuitionism.

则是它的镜像。

Is a mirror image.

直觉主义大致认为，你应该做任何你觉得正确的事，我们所有人都拥有道德直觉。

So intuitionism is the view, roughly speaking, that you should do whatever seems right to you, that we all have moral intuitions.

我们对各种状态拥有判断。

We have judgments about states of affairs.

我们中的一些人有着极其恶劣、邪恶、破坏性的

Some of us have very vile, nasty, destructive

破坏性的想法。

destructive thoughts.

想法。

Thoughts.

嗯，我们确实有。

Well, we do.

所以，一个直觉主义者会说，如果你有这些想法，那就是你教养不好。

Some So so an intuitionist will say you've been brought up badly if you have those thoughts.

哦，是吗？

Oh, have you?

我们必须依赖那些最懂行的人的直觉，而这些人通常是来自顶尖牛津剑桥学院、撰写过相关理论的人。

And that we have to rely on the intuitions of those who know best, who turn out to be the people who've written the theory and are from the finest Oxbridge colleges on the whole.

所以，直觉主义存在这样一个问题。

So this is a problem with intuitionism.

而我们在这里看到的，罗尔斯所做的——无论这是他内心的真实想法，还是一种历史发展的体现——都在重复公共政策中反复出现的某种模式。

And what we've got here, what Rawls has done, whether it's something going on in his own mind or a type of historical development, is is replaying something that comes up time and time again in public policy.

因为一方面，我们想要规则，想要问责制，想要公开透明的东西。

Because on the one hand, we want rules, we want accountability, we want something that is public and transparent.

但任何规则体系的问题在于，它常常会给我们带来我们并不喜欢的判断和结果。

But the problem with any system of rules is that very often it will give us judgments, outcomes we don't like very much.

就我对规则的理解而言（其他人可能有不同看法），我认为规则试图兼顾这两种理论的优势，并规避或克服它们的缺点。

In my reading of rules and others may differ, what I see rules is doing is trying to get the advantages of both of these theories and ignore, overcome the disadvantages.

因此，他想要的是一种原则，这种原则只会给我们正确的答案，而不是功利主义原则那样有时会带来不公正的结果。

So what he wants is a principle that only ever gives us the right answers rather than the tab utilitarian principle that will sometimes give us unjust outcomes.

法比安·彼得，罗尔斯的方法中包含着社会契约的元素。

Fabienne Peter, there's an element of the social contract in Rolle's approach.

你能告诉我们这是什么，以及他借鉴了其中哪些部分吗？

Can you tell us what that is and what part of it he was drawing on, please?

当然可以。

Yes, of course.

事实上，社会契约传统在十八世纪尤其具有影响力，在罗尔斯思考正义原则时发挥了重要作用。

Indeed, the social contract tradition, which was particularly influential in the eighteenth century, played a huge part in how Rawls thought about the principles of justice.

正如乔和马丁所解释的，罗尔斯试图弄清楚一个公正的社会会是什么样子，他思考这个问题的方式是：什么样的正义原则能够规范社会的基本结构或基本社会制度。

As Joe and Martin explained, Rawls was trying to figure out what a just society would look like and the way he thought about this was what are the principles of justice that could govern the basic structure or the basic social institutions of a society.

我们正在讨论的《正义论》一书以一句精彩的话开篇：正义是社会制度的首要美德。在思考社会制度的正义性时，罗尔斯认为，如果我们回到那些具有影响力的十八世纪社会契约思想家——尤其是约翰·洛克、让-雅克·卢梭和伊曼努尔·康德——会有助益。

The theory of justice, the book we're discussing, starts with this wonderful sentence saying that justice is the first virtue of social institutions and in thinking about the justice of social institutions Rawls thought that it will help if we go back to these influential eighteenth century social contract thinkers especially John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Emmanuel Kant.

这些思想家非常多元，我相信你们比大多数人更了解这一点，但在罗尔斯看来，以及许多人的观点中，他们共同之处在于，他们都设想了一种公正的社会契约，一种界定公正社会的正义原则体系，一种每个人都应认同的制度，其起点是对所有公民平等自由的承诺。

These are very diverse thinkers as I'm sure you know better than most but what united them in Rolle's view and in the views of many is that they thought about a just social contract, a system of principles of justice that define a just society, that define a system that everyone should subscribe to, would start from a commitment to the equal freedom of all citizens.

因此，一个公正的社会是所有公民——作为自由和平等的个体——都能同意的社会。

So a just society is one that all citizens, all persons understood as free and equal could agree to.

他们可以认同这种社会，而罗尔斯认为这是一个重要的理念，他正是基于这一理念构建了他的正义理论：作为自由和平等的个体，人们能够共同同意哪些正义原则？

They could sign up to that sort of society and Rawls thought that was an important idea and he built his justice on that idea of what principles of justice could persons understood as free and equal all agree to.

正如我所提到的，这种关于公正社会的思考在十八世纪达到顶峰，但随着乔所提到的功利主义兴起，它逐渐失去了影响力。

As I mentioned, this kind of thinking about the just societies peaked in the eighteenth century and then with the ascent of utilitarianism that Joe mentioned it lost influence.

它失去影响力的部分原因在于，有影响力的功利主义思想家杰里米·边沁嘲讽了这一理念，尤其是嘲讽了‘人天生平等且自由’这一观点。

It lost influence in part because Jeremy Bentham, the influential utilitarian thinker, ridiculed the idea and particularly he ridiculed the idea of people are somehow naturally equal and equally free.

因此，他嘲笑了自然权利的概念，即每个人都应拥有平等的权利。

So he ridiculed the idea of natural rights, everyone would have equal rights.

他称那是‘装在高跷上的胡言乱语’。

He called that nonsense upon stilts.

当罗尔斯在二十世纪开始思考正义时，他认为功利主义虽然有其优势，但一个大问题是它并不能真正给出关于正义的正确答案；因此，为了在思考公正社会应是什么样子上取得进展，我们应该回到这些早期思想家，重新从这样一个想法出发：如果我们所有人都将彼此视为平等者，我们能共同同意什么样的社会才是公正的？

When Rawls set out in the twentieth century to think about justice he thought well utilitarianism has its advantages but one big problem is it doesn't actually give us the right answers on justice so to make progress in thinking about what a just society looks like, we should go back to these earlier thinkers and start again from this thought as if we all understand each other as equals, what could we all agree to would a just society look like?

所以，如果可能的话，简要地说一下，如果可以，那就这么说。

So what If it's possible to be brief about this, and if it is, it is.

如果不行，那就不行。

If it isn't, it isn't.

总的来说，他的观点是什么？

Overall, what's his view?

他的正义理论是什么？

What's his theory of justice?

他的正义理论，他称之为‘作为公平的正义’，是一种基于两个主要正义原则的理论。

His theory of justice, he calls it justice as fairness, is a theory that is based on two main principles of justice.

第一个平等自由原则认为，在一个公正的社会中，所有社会成员都享有平等的基本权利和自由。

The first principle of equal liberties holds that in a just society all members of society enjoy an equal set of basic rights and liberties.

他提出的第二个正义原则，就像第一个原则一样，是每个人都能够同意的正义原则。

The second principle of justice that he thought defined the just society is the sort of principle everyone could agree to like the first one is a principle of justice.

它包含两个部分：一是公平机会平等原则，即社会应为每个人提供公平的机会；二是差异原则，即一个公正的社会应使最不利者受益。

It has two components: one is principle of fair equality of opportunity such as society would give everyone fair opportunities and the second part of the second principle of justice is a difference principle which says that a just society works to the benefit of the least well off in that society.

这不就是激进的部分吗？

That's the radical part isn't it?

这确实是激进的部分。

That's the radical part.

我的意思是，还有其他激进的元素，因为即使是第一部分——平等权利与自由原则，也指出这些权利和自由中包括政治权利和自由，而他认为每个人都应享有公平的价值，这是一个非常严格的理念：仅仅每个人都有投票权是不够的。

I mean there are other radical elements because even the first part, the first principle, the principle of equal rights and liberty says that of those rights and liberties one aspect is the political rights and liberties and there he thought everyone should enjoy a fair value which is a very demanding idea that it's not enough that everyone has a right to vote.

每个人都应当真正拥有平等的发言权，能够成为社会中平等的贡献者。

Everyone should in fact have an equal say in society, be in a position to be an equal contributing member to society.

这本身就已经非常激进了。

That's already very radical.

但差异原则——即社会不应有利于已经处境更好的人，而应使最弱势者受益——这无疑也同样非常激进。

But then the difference principle, the thought that a society should not work to the advantage of the already better off but benefit the worst off, that was certainly also very radical.

谢谢你的讲解。

Well, thank you for that.

这是一个非常好的起点。

That's a very, very good starting point.

马丁，那我们来谈谈这个。

Martin, so let's take this.

实际上有三个。

There's there's three, really.

是的。

Yeah.

第一个和第二个，而第二个又分为两部分，所以算作三个。

One and two in two parts, so let's call it three.

你能先跟我们说说自由吗？还有公平的机会？他对自由的看法是什么？

Can you tell us, first of all, about liberty and then about fair opportunity, what his view of liberty was?

我认为

So I think

你得到了简单的问题。

You get the easy question.

嗯，法比安已经很好地介绍了这一点。

Well, Fabian's done a very good job of of introducing that.

现在我想说的是，你完全正确，这确实是三个原则。

Now I think one thing to say is you're absolutely right that this is three principles.

鲁尔斯总是说他有两个，但实际上，由于第二个原则分为两部分，把它看作三个更容易理解。

Rules always says that he's got two, but, actually, given that the the second divides into two halves, it's much easier to think of it as three.

所以鲁尔斯说，正如法比安所说，应该有一个平等基本自由的体系，这其实就是人们熟悉的自由表达、集会、行动自由和权利自由。

So Rules says there should be, as Fabian has said, the system of equal basic liberties, and that's really the kind of familiar liberal freedom of expression, assembly, freedom of movement Freedom of rights.

哇。

Wow.

我的意思是，也许还不到免于恐惧的自由。

I mean, maybe not yet freedom from fear.

对。

Right.

这些正是我们在民主社会中所拥有的基本宪法权利。

These are just the kind of the basic constitutional rights that we'd have in a democratic society.

但罗尔斯为这一理念增添了一个非常激进的补充条件。

But to that, Rawls adds this really quite radical rider to that idea.

因此，他认为，仅仅考虑我们作为民主公民所享有的各种自由是不够的。

So he says it's not enough simply if you think about the various liberties that we have as democratic citizens.

仅仅这些自由是形式上的保障是不够的。

It's not enough that those are merely formal protections.

我们需要他所说的政治自由的公平价值。

We need what he calls the fair value of the political liberties.

因此，对罗尔斯而言，这意味着对于具有相似动机和相似能力参与政治过程的人们来说。

So what that means for rules is that for people with a similar motivation and similar ability to intervene the political process.

他们应当有大致相等的机会去影响政治结果。

There should be roughly equal prospects of getting to influence political outcomes.

在一个富人或特权阶层的利益远比其他人更重要的政治体系中，或者某些群体能够成为议员而其他群体却不能的政治体系中。

So a political system where the interests of the the rich or privileged gets much more weight than the interests of others or where certain groups get to, you know, become members of parliament and other groups don't.

这是一个未能实现政治自由公平价值的社会，即使在形式上每个人都有相同的权利。

That's a society that fails to realize the fair value of the political liberties, even if in formal terms, everyone has got the same same rights.

现在转向第二个原则，当罗尔斯谈到公平的机会平等时，正如法比安所说，这也是一个出人意料的激进理念，因为它不仅仅意味着经济中的所有职位都应形式上对所有人开放，不应因种族、性别、性取向或其他任何因素而存在歧视。

Now to move to the second principle then, when Rawls talks about this idea of fairer equality of opportunity, as Fabian has said, that's also a surprisingly radical idea because it's not merely the idea that all jobs economy should be formally open to everyone, that there shouldn't be discrimination on grounds of of race or gender or sexual orientation or or whatever it it might be.

它更强调一种更强有力的观点：具有相似动机和能力的人，应在经济领域拥有同等的成功前景，正如前一个原则旨在保障政治领域中的公平机会一样。

It's the much stronger thought that those who with similar motivation and ability should have the same prospects of success in the economic realm just as the earlier principle wants to guarantee a fair chance at success in the in the political realm.

因此，这两个原则共同构想了一个社会：人们出身的社会事实——他们的社会阶层、种族——都不会真正影响他们在政治或经济领域取得成功的机会。

So those two principles together really envisage a society where none of the social facts about people's backgrounds, their their social class, their race, none of that would actually have influence on their chances of success, whether in the political domain or or whether in the the economic domain.

他有没有提出任何实现这一目标的方法，还是这仅仅是一种理想化的愿景？

Did he work out in any way how this could be achievable, or does it does it remain a sort of idealistic vision?

他确实讨论了实现这一目标所需的一些条件。

So he he does talk about some of what would be involved there.

我想，其中主要的两点之一是教育体系。

I suppose the two main things that come up there, on the one hand, he he talks a little bit about the education system.

他设想的是一种试图消除背景不平等的教育体系。

So what he envisages there is it's an education system that tries to act to overturn background inequalities.

因此，其思路是：如果一个社会中某些群体拥有其他人所不具备的优势，你就应设计一个教育体系，将更多资源定向投放给那些来自相对不利背景的人，以期平等化他们的生活机会。

So the thought would be that if you've got a society where some some groups have advantages that others don't, you try and design an education system that actually targeted more resources at those coming into it from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds to try to equalize life chances.

这其中另一个重要部分是税收制度。

Another big part of of that would then be, the tax system.

由于罗尔斯对政治领域和经济领域这两种不同的公平机会平等极为关注，他非常担忧优势的代际传递，即一代人的财富如何转化为下一代人不公平的机会。

So Rawls, because he's so interested in these two different kinds of fair equality of opportunity in the political domain and the, the economic domain, he's very worried about the intergenerational transmission of advantage, the way that wealth in one generation turns into unfair opportunities in in the next generation.

他认为，我们需要设计一种税收制度来对抗这种现象。

And he thinks that what we need to do is design a tax system that tries to to fight against that.

因此，他支持高额的遗产税或资本转移税。

So he endorses high levels of inheritance taxation or capital transfer taxation.

他认为，我们需要一种财政结构，阻止财富在代际间不断累积，从而避免这种优势在代际间转化为不公平的差距。

He thinks what what we need is a a fiscal structure that stops this kind of buildup of of enormous wealth across generations that turns into unfair levels of advantage from generation to generation.

非常感谢。

Thank you very much.

乔·沃尔夫，关于差异原则，我们了解多少？

Joe Wolff, what do we know about about the difference principle?

我认为我们所知道的一点是，这是一个极具原创性的原则。

Well, one thing I think we know is that it is a highly original principle.

罗尔斯是一个非常谦逊的人。

Rawls was a very modest man.

如果你仔细阅读《正义论》，你会发现他几乎每一个观点都试图找到之前有人提出过。

And if you look through A Theory of Justice, virtually every idea he has, he tries to find someone who had it before.

因此，这本书中充满了这样的引用。

So the the book is just peppered.

他只是想显得在炫耀。

He just wanted to seem to be showing off.

他并不想炫耀。

He didn't want to show off.

他是个非常谦逊的人。

He was a very modest man.

但据我所知，他找不到任何人可以将差异原则归功于。

But he can't find anyone to pin the difference principle on as far as I can see.

那里有一两个预示它的影子。

There there are one or two shadows foreshadowings of it.

也许介绍它的一种方式是，在20世纪40年代的英国工党中，曾就平等展开过一场辩论。

And maybe one way of introducing it is that in the British Labour Party in in the 19 forces, there was a debate about equality.

有些人主张收入和财富的完全平等，但这种观点很容易被批评为平等会削弱激励。

And some people wanted complete equality of income and wealth, but that lays you open to an easy critique that equality takes away incentives.

如果我们平均分配一切，谁还会去工作呢？

And so if we divide everything equally, who's gonna go to work?

你知道，推动社会运转的动力将从何而来？

You know, who where is the juice that runs society going to come from?

因此，这些简单的平等理论并不受欢迎。

So these simple theories of equality were not really in favor.

但工党认为，只要不平等有利于每个人，就是可以接受的。

But the Labour Party said inequality is justifiable as long as it works to everyone's advantage.

因此，这种不平等必须是为了每个人的利益。

So it has to be inequality for the sake of everyone.

我认为罗尔斯所做的，就是我们仍然坚持差异原则。

And what I think Rawls did was just We we still sit on the difference principle.

我们遵循差异原则。

We're on the difference principle.

收入和财富的不平等应当有利于所有人。

Inequalities of income and wealth are to be to the advantage of everyone.

但我认为，罗尔斯更进一步，指出这不仅仅是要有利于所有人。

But Rawls, I think, ratchets up a notch and says it's not just that they've got to be to the advantage of everyone.

它们还必须使最不利者的生活状况达到最优。

They've got to make the worst off as well off as possible.

因此，如果我们试图评判社会的公正性，就不应只关注最不利个体的收入和财富，因为这可能导致相当武断的结果；而应识别出最不利的群体——无论他们是谁，比如最低工资的工人、失业者。

So if we're trying to judge the justice of our society, we should look to the income and wealth, not of the worst off individual because that could give us quite arbitrary results, but but identify the worst off group, whoever they may be, the lowest paid workers, unemployed people.

如果我们提升他们的处境会导致其他人陷入比他们更差的境地，那么我们的社会就是不公正的。

And if we could improve their position making anyone else fall below where those people were, then our society is unjust.

因此，正义要求我们使最不利群体的生活状况达到最优。

And so justice requires us to make the worst off group as well off as possible.

据我所知，没有任何社会曾接近实现过这一点。

And as far as I know, no society has ever achieved anything even close to that.

所以这不仅仅是再分配的问题。

So it's not just about redistribution.

这不仅仅是高税收，而是要构建一种社会形式，让最弱势群体能够尽可能地繁荣发展。

It's not just about high tax, but arranging a form of society where the worst off can flourish as much as is possible.

你觉得这个想法怎么样？

What you think of it as an idea?

嗯，这是个美好的想法。

Well, it's a lovely idea.

没错。

Yeah.

我想我

Think I

我在推得太远了。

I'm I'm pushing it.

你认为那会是什么样的？

What do you think would be on that?

这能实现吗？

Is it achievable?

嗯，我非常希望生活在一个那样的社会里。

Well, so I would love to live in that society.

它可能无法实现的原因有几个。

There are several ways in which it might not be achievable.

一个是它可能在经济上不可行。

One is whether it may it's not economically achievable.

但我看不出有什么理由认为它无法实现。

And I don't see any reason to think that it couldn't be achievable.

它可能不是通过税收和转移支付来实现的。

It may be not through tax and transfer.

也许我们必须彻底重组社会。

Maybe we'd have to completely reorganize society.

在他的后期著作中，罗尔斯提出了财产所有者民主的概念。

In his later work, Rawls use the idea of a property owning democracy.

也就是说，我们要分散财富。

So the idea that we disperse wealth.

这并不是关于再分配。

So it's not about redistribution.

而是让每个人都能充分发挥自己的能力去生活。

It's allowing everyone to live their own lives to the best of their abilities.

所以就我所知，从经济上讲，这是一个可行的想法。

So I think economically, it's a feasible idea for as much as I know about it.

但从政治上讲，它没有机会。

Politically, it hasn't got a chance.

我认为这回到了马丁所提出的观点：政治自由的公平价值问题。

And I think this goes goes back to the points Martin was making about hasn't the fair value of political liberties.

因为只要我们还存在一个允许富人花费大量金钱竞选当选的制度，我们就不可能出台像罗尔斯所期望的那样再分配财富的政策。

Because for as long as we've got a system which allows wealthy people to spend a lot of money getting elected, then we're not going to have policies that redistribute wealth in the way that rules would want.

谢谢。

Thank you.

法比安·皮泰克。

Fabienne Pitek.

有一种理论，颇为模糊，被称为原初状态。

There's this theory rather ambiguous called the ambiguously called the original position.

你能给我们讲讲这个理论吗？

Now can you tell us about that?

确实如此。

Indeed.

原初状态是《正义论》中众多持久影响深远的思想之一。

The original position is one of the many long lasting ideas that we find in the theory of justice.

《正义论》堪称一个充满新颖思想的宝库，这些思想广为流传，并深刻影响了哲学。

The theory of justice is really a treasure trove, I would say, of novel ideas that have caught on and influenced philosophy a great deal.

原初状态就是其中之一。

The original position is one of them.

这是一个思想实验，有助于我们阐释关于公正社会的契约论观点。

It's a thought experiment that helps us to illustrate the social contract approach to thinking about a just society.

正如我之前解释的，契约论认为，规则应当是被视为自由和平等的人们能够达成一致的一套原则。

As I explained earlier the social contract approach that rules take is what is the set of principles that persons understood as free and equal can agree to.

那么，我们这里所说的这种协议究竟是什么样的呢？

Now what's this sort of agreement that we're talking about here?

问题是，如果我们从每个人在社会中的实际地位出发来思考协议，他们可能会偏向自己的特权——这是一个问题；或者，处境较好的人可能会收买处境较差的人，达成一种最终有利于优势群体的总体协议。

The problem is if we think about the agreement starting from everyone's actual position in society they might be biased towards their privilege that's one problem or the better off might try to buy off the worse off to an overall agreement that ends up benefiting the better off.

因此，我们不能真正从实际的起点出发，因为现实社会中已经根深蒂固地存在着太多不平等。

So we can't really take our actual starting points because there's too much inequality baked in the actual society as we know it.

原初状态是一个思想实验，它帮助我们设想：如果从无知之幕背后出发来思考一个公正社会，这样的协议会是什么样子。

The original position is a thought experiment that helps us illustrate what would an agreement look like if it was reached from a starting point of of thinking about a just society from behind a veil of ignorance.

这层无知之幕允许我们了解社会的一般情况——它是如何运作的、经济如何运行、有哪些社会动态，但不会透露任何关于我们自身在社会中具体身份的信息。

This veil of ignorance lets through information about our society in general how it works, how the economy works, what social dynamics are but it doesn't let through any information about who we are in that society.

等等。

Hold on.

所以我们都在这层帷幕之后吗？

So we're all behind this veil?

没错。

That's right.

每个人？

Everybody?

每个人。

Everybody.

或者一组被委以寻找正义的代表。

Or a set of representatives charged with finding justice.

那么这个机制是如何运作的？

So how does the thing operate?

我们会掀开这层帷幕吗？

Do we take off the veil?

你就直接带我们进入基本状态

You just take us that rather In basic

第一步，这个设定有助于我们展现一种平等立场：如果你不知道自己是富是穷，不了解自己的性别认同或种族，那么沃尔斯认为，你会更倾向于从不被自身现状所偏颇的角度思考正义的要求，这有助于达成总体共识。

step the first instance it helps us illustrate a position of equality so if you don't know whether you're rich or poor, what your gender identity is, what your race is, then Walls hoped you'd be more inclined to think about what justice requires in a way that's not biased by your current position and will be helpful in reaching an overall agreement.

然而，当然，如果想让刚才提到的这些正义原则变得更加具体，躲在无知之幕背后就没什么帮助了。

However, of course, being behind this veil of ignorance is not helpful if you're trying to make these principles of justice that we just heard about more concrete.

罗尔斯认为，这个过程包含四个阶段。

The way in which rules thought about it is that there's a four stage sequence.

第一阶段是：一个公正的社会应该是什么样子？

The first stage is what would a just society even look like.

这种商议是在无知之幕背后进行的，但当我们试图让这些原则更具体、制定出可在社会中实施的准则时，无知之幕会逐渐被揭开；到了制定法律的最终阶段，所有信息都已公开，但核心思想仍然是：我们应如何设计法律？

That deliberation happens behind the veil of ignorance but when we then try to make it more concrete and work out principles that can be implemented in society this veil is gradually lifted and in the end at the stage of making laws all information is available but the thought is still the deliberation about what should our laws be like.

这一过程受到一种正义观念的约束——这种观念是在一种反思性过程中形成的，在此过程中，我们较少受到自身偏见的影响，理想情况下完全不受我们在社会中实际地位所带来的优势或劣势的左右。

It's constrained by an idea of justice reached in a deliberative process where we're less influenced by our or ideally not influenced by our biases or thinking about our advantages given our actual positions in society.

谢谢。

Thank you.

马丁，你来回应一下这个问题吗？

Martin, do want to take that on?

是的。

Yeah.

所以，我认为一种理解无知之幕如何运作的方式，是将社会契约传统推向了极端。

So I suppose one way of thinking about how the veil of ignorance functions, it's a sort of radicalisation of the social contract tradition.

它思考的不是你和我在你对我不利、我担心你能对我做什么的情况下会同意什么。

It's thinking not not what you and I would agree to if, you know, if you've got some threat advantage over me, if I'm sort of worried about what you can do to me.

如果我们能消除任何使协议不公平的因素，比如我们起点不同，如果我们能完全抽象掉这些因素，然后思考：在一般层面上，我们对社会的构建会达成怎样的共识？

If we could strip away anything that makes an agreement unfair, so the fact that we have different starting points, if we can get abstract away from all of that and then think, well, what we agree to in general terms about the the construction of our society?

这是一种通过在无知条件下进行选择或谈判来捕捉这一理念的方式。

That's a way of capturing through an idea of of of sort of choice or bargaining under conditions of of ignorance.

这是一种捕捉公正性理念的方式。

It's a way of capturing an idea of of impartiality.

因此，如果你愿意这么说，原初状态下的无知之幕，是我们任何人都可以在任何时候进入的一种状态。

And so if you like, it it it's a kind of the original position behind the veil of ignorance, it's something it's something that we could enter, any of us, at at any time.

这是一种思想实验。

It's thought experiment.

这是一种试图为某种超越单纯直觉主义的体系提供依据的方式，乔之前谈到过这种抱负和规则。

It's a way of trying to give some sort of I Joe was talking earlier about the ambition and rules for some sort of going beyond mere intuitionism.

原始位置提供了一种想象机制，能够将那些可能模糊不清的道德直觉，引导至一套明确的程序，从而得出一套关于社会应该如何治理的原则，这种方式摒弃了现实世界协议中常常包含的种种不纯因素——正如法比安所说，这些因素往往反映了背景性的不平等。

What the original position does is it gives you a kind of imaginative mechanism for turning what might be sort of inchoate moral intuitions and and sort of funneling them towards a definite set of a definite procedure for getting a set of principles for for how a society ought to be governed, and that in a way that that takes away all kind of the impurities of real world agreements that that often reflect, as Fabienne was saying, background inequalities.

乔？

Joe?

罗尔斯说过一件事，我认为这有助于让这个想法生动起来。

There's one thing Rawls says, I think, which helps bring the idea to life.

他说：想象一下，如果你知道你的敌人会为你分配在社会中的位置，你会如何设计社会？

And he says, imagine how you would design society if you knew that your enemy was going to assign you your place in it.

然后，如果我没记错的话，他紧接着说：但我们不应从错误的前提进行推理。

And then if I remember correctly, he says immediately after that, but we shouldn't reason from false premises.

所以，这仅仅是一种启发式方法。

So, you know, this is just a type of heuristic.

但这个想法是，虽然认为自己有个敌人挺美好的，但假设你真有个敌人，而这个人负责分配你的位置，你就会希望把社会中最糟糕的位置尽可能改善。

But the the idea is if it's rather sweet to think you have an enemy, but, you know, assume you have an enemy and that person was assigning you a place, you would want to make the worst place in society as good as possible.

这就是罗尔斯的观点。

And and this is Rawls's idea.

如果你以一种完全公正的方式来看待这个问题，不知道自己最终会在社会中处于什么位置，那么他认为，你会设计出一个公正的社会。

If you're looking at this in a completely impartial way, not knowing where you're going to end up in society, then you would design a just society, he thinks.

我的意思是，用最简单的说法来说，如果你要给一些孩子分生日蛋糕，你不会希望分蛋糕的人自己先选蛋糕块。

I I mean, to to put it in its simplest terms, if if you're dividing a birthday cake among some children, you don't want someone to be choosing the slice that they've cut.

对吧？

Right?

所以，如果让一个孩子切蛋糕，另一个孩子来选蛋糕块，这就是一种方法。

So if you get one child to cut the cake and the other child to choose which slice they get, that's a way of it.

他们会尽量把蛋糕切得一样大。

They're gonna cut them as equally as possible.

实际上，这正是一个非常简单的想法：如果你无法选择自己在社会中的位置，但你在决定这些位置的分配方式时，你会尽可能做到公平。

And, really, it it's just that that very simple thought about how if you don't get to choose which place you occupy in society, but you are choosing what the distribution of those places look like, you're going to be as fair as possible.

是的。

Yeah.

我能回头再问你一下吗，乔？

Can I come back to you, Joe?

正义和公平之间的区别是什么？

What's the distinction between justice and fairness?

很高兴你问了这个问题，因为罗尔斯将他的观点称为‘作为公平的正义’。

Well, I'm glad you asked that question because the Rawls described his view as justice as fairness.

这让人感到困惑，尤其是翻译人员。

And it has left people scratching their heads and particularly translators.

因为据我所知，在许多语言中，正义和公平实际上并没有区别。

Because in many languages, there actually isn't a distinction, as far as I know, between justice and fairness.

但在英语中，这两个词是有区别的。

But in the English language, there is a difference between these terms.

思考这个问题的一种方式是想想婴儿的评分。

And the the one way of thinking about it is think about the infant score.

婴儿在幼年时期就具有很强的公平感。

So children in their infancy have a very strong sense of fairness.

现在的事情，或者更准确地说，不公平，人们会说这不公平。

Things now that's or rather unfairness, saying that's unfair.

所以一个四岁的孩子可能会说这不公平。

So a four year old might say that's unfair.

但如果同一个四岁孩子说，你知道，这不公正，我们会感到有点惊讶。

But if the same four year old said, you know, that's unjust, we'd be a bit surprised.

我想，除非他是高等法院法官或哲学家的父母。

I think, you there is a parent of high court judge or a philosopher.

因此，正义似乎具有一种公平所不具备的深度和可能的形式主义。

And so justice seems to have a type of depth to it and maybe formalism that fairness doesn't.

所以对罗尔斯而言，公平在很大程度上是一个程序性问题。

So fairness is, for Rawls, largely a procedural matter.

因此，据我理解，他认为‘作为公平的正义’ simply 意味着我们实现结果调整的方式是通过公平的程序。

So as I understand it, I think by justice as fairness, he simply means that the way that we get to adjust outcome is through fair procedures.

而原初状态和无知之幕就是一种公平程序的方式。

And the original position is a way and the veil of ignorance is a way of having a fair procedure.

如果我们把程序搞对了，那么在另一端就会得到一个公正的结果。

If we get the procedure right, then we will get a just outcome at the other end.

你一直在点头。

You're nodding away.

是的。

Yes.

因此，程序正义的理念是角色的重要贡献，它与我们之前谈到的他的关注点——社会基本结构的正义——联系在一起，即社会的基本制度体系，因为我们也可以将正义理解为个人的正义。

So the idea of procedural justice is an essential contribution of roles and it links back to what we said earlier about his focus being on the justice of the basic structure of society that is the set of society's basic institutions because we could also think about justice as the justice of person.

什么是公正的人？

What is a just person?

或者我们可以将正义理解为我们彼此之间 individually 应尽的义务，但罗尔斯认为，这些在社会层面上都难以真正解决；但如果我们采用程序正义的理念，即让社会的基本制度正确运行，并由一组简单的正义原则来治理，那么无论产生什么结果，都是公正的。

Or we could think about justice as what do we owe each other individually but Rawls thought these were all questions that we can't really resolve at the social level but we can make progress in thinking about justice if we adopt a procedural idea of justice where we get the basic institutions of society right, have them being governed by a small set of principles of justice and then whatever outcome results is just.

关于无知之幕理论，存在一些批评。

There been criticisms of the of the theory veil of ignorance.

有一些。

Are a few.

也许提一下一些。

Perhaps just mention some.

对原初状态和无知之幕的一组有影响力批评来自当时被称为社群主义者的社会哲学家。

One influential set of criticisms against the original position and the veil of ignorance came from a set of social philosophers which were known as the communitarians at the time.

他们对罗尔斯的思想实验的质疑在于，罗尔斯所描述的原初状态的一个特征是，他认为处于无知之幕背后的人们是彼此漠不关心的，他这样认为是因为他认为正义的条件之一是我们并非都极度利他，因此，如果设想我们都是道德圣人，都关心彼此并试图为对方做最好之事，那将是对正义理论的误导。

The issue they had with Rawls' thought experiment was that one feature of the original position as Rawls described it is he thought of people behind the veil of ignorance as mutually disinterested and he did that because he thought well one of circumstances of justice is that we are not all maximally altruistic so it'd be misleading to think about a theory of justice that could actually be implemented if we imagined that we're all moral saints, we're all concerned about each other and all trying to do the best for each other.

他认为正义的问题在于我们并非如此，但我们也并非敌人，对吧？

He thought the problem of justice is that we're not like that but we're not enemies either right?

因此，他认为将无知之幕背后的人假设为彼此漠不关心是一个良好的起点，但这些社会哲学家认为，这种描述是对人的误导性刻画。

So he thought assuming the people behind the veil of ignorance as mutually disinterested is a good starting point but these social philosophers thought that this is a misleading characterisation of persons.

作为人，我们本质上是社会性存在，我们通过与他人的联系而诞生，并通过与他人的联系过上美好的生活。

As persons we are inherently social beings we are born through our connections with others and we live good lives through our connections with others.

因此，他们认为，彼此漠不关心——这归根结底只是利己和原子化的表现——是思考正义的错误起点。

So mutual disinterestness which they thought boils down to us just being self interested and atomistic is the wrong starting point for thinking about justice.

我认为这是对罗尔斯的某种误解。

I think that's a sort of misconstrual of Rawls.

他并没有把我们视为原子化的、自私的个体，他所关注的理性证成过程，并非旨在满足我们的自我利益。

He did not think of us as atomistic, self interested being and this process of rational justification he was interested in was not one where we tried to satisfy our self interest.

这更多是由我们对正义的感知所驱动的。

It was very much one that's driven by our sense of justice.

乔，你要不要说两句？

Joe, you want come in?

我想提一下对无知之幕更近期的一种批评，即它在某种程度上‘无知’得太多了。

I wanted to mention a more recent criticism of the veil of ignorance, which is that it has, in a way, too much ignorance.

我们之前讨论过罗尔斯写作时所处的政治背景，其中之一就是民权运动。

We talked before about the political events going on at the time Rawls was writing, and one of them is a civil rights movement.

近年来，罗尔斯因未能充分探讨种族正义而受到大量批评。

And recently, Rawls has come under a lot of criticism for not really having a discussion of racial justice

是的。

Yeah.

在美国。

In The United States.

作为这个国家的本科生或研究生，我从未注意到这一点。

And I I suppose as a undergraduate graduate student in this country, I never noticed this.

但如今当这一点被提出来时，你会震惊地发现，他写作时仿佛自己社会中一场最伟大的变革从未发生过。

But now when it's brought to your attention, it's rather staggering that he he writes as if one of the greatest transformations in in his society hadn't taken place.

近年来，这种批评的一种方式来自在北美工作的牙买加哲学家查尔斯·米尔斯。

And one way in which this criticism has been made in recent years was from the Jamaican philosopher who worked in North America, Charles Mills.

一种表述方式是，米尔斯认为，我们需要了解一些历史事实，才能得出正确的正义理论。

And one way of putting it is that Mills thinks we need to know some facts about history in order to come up with the right theory of justice.

试图解释这一点的一种方式是：假设美国社会明天实施了作为正义原则的规则，它会是一个公正的社会吗？

And one way of trying to explain this is say, suppose American society tomorrow implemented rules as principles of justice, would it be a just society?

米尔斯说，不会。

And Mill says, well, no.

它不会是公正的。

It wouldn't.

因为如果我们仅仅致力于让最不利者过得尽可能好，而种族少数群体正是最不利者，那么在变革之后，他们仍将是处境最差的群体。

Because if we're all we're doing is making the worst off as well off as possible and racial minorities are the worst off, they will still be the worst off after the transformation.