Philosophers · 哲學家 · The 1900s to Today
John Rawls 羅爾斯 · John Bordley Rawls
A shy man with a stutter who spent twenty years on one book, and with it brought political philosophy back to the question of what a just society would be.
一個害羞、口吃的人,花了二十年寫一本書;而他用這本書,把政治哲學帶回到了「一個正義的社會會是什麼樣子」這個問題上。
- Born 出生
- February 21, 1921, Baltimore, Maryland, the second of five sons
- Died 去世
- November 24, 2002, Lexington, Massachusetts
- Education 學歷
- Princeton (BA 1943, PhD 1950); a year at Oxford
- War service 戰時服役
- Infantryman in the Pacific, 1943–1946
- Taught at 任教
- Cornell, MIT, and from 1962 Harvard
- Main works 主要著作
- A Theory of Justice (1971), Political Liberalism (1993), The Law of Peoples (1999)
中文翻譯Every paragraph has a Chinese translation. Tap 中譯▾ under a paragraph to open that one, or use Show Chinese · 顯示中譯 at the top to open them all. 每一段都有中譯:點段落下方的「中譯」只開那一段,或按上方的「顯示中譯」一次全部打開。
Life · 生平
A life in three scenes 三幕人生
Two brothers 兩個弟弟
John Rawls was born in Baltimore in 1921. His father was a prominent lawyer and his mother campaigned for women’s right to vote. In 1928, when he was seven, he caught diphtheria. His brother Bobby, twenty months younger, came into his room to keep him company, caught the disease, and died. The following winter Rawls had pneumonia. Another younger brother, Tommy, caught it from him and also died. Rawls recovered both times. He developed a stutter that stayed with him for life, and he himself connected it with these deaths.
約翰・羅爾斯 1921 年生於巴爾的摩。他的父親是一位知名的律師;他的母親為婦女的投票權奔走。1928 年他七歲的時候,染上了白喉。比他小二十個月的弟弟巴比,進他的房間陪他,染上了這個病,死了。隔年冬天,羅爾斯得了肺炎。另一個弟弟湯米被他傳染,也死了。羅爾斯兩次都康復了。他從此有了口吃,跟了他一輩子;而他自己把它跟這兩次死亡連在一起。
His biographer Thomas Pogge calls the loss of the brothers the most important events of his childhood. It is hard not to connect them with the idea that runs through his work: that who lives and who dies, who is gifted and who is not, who is born into which house, are matters of luck for which no one can take credit or blame. Rawls rarely spoke of it.
他的傳記作者湯瑪斯・博格說,失去這兩個弟弟,是他童年最重要的事件。很難不把它們跟貫穿他著作的那個觀念連在一起:誰活、誰死,誰有天賦、誰沒有,誰生在哪一戶人家,都是運氣的事;沒有人能為此居功或受責。羅爾斯很少談起這件事。
The Pacific 太平洋
At Princeton he wrote an intensely religious senior thesis and thought of becoming an Episcopal priest. He graduated in 1943 and enlisted in the army. He served as an infantryman in New Guinea, where he was awarded the Bronze Star, and in the Philippines, where he saw heavy fighting. It was there that he lost his Christian faith. After Japan surrendered he was part of the occupying army and saw what was left of Hiroshima. He was promoted to sergeant. Then he refused an order to discipline a fellow soldier, because he believed that no punishment was justified, and he was demoted to private. He left the army in January 1946.
在普林斯頓,他寫了一篇宗教情感濃烈的畢業論文,並且考慮過成為聖公會的牧師。他 1943 年畢業,隨即入伍。他在新幾內亞當步兵,在那裡獲頒銅星勳章;又到菲律賓,在那裡見到了激烈的戰鬥。他就是在那裡失去了基督信仰。日本投降之後,他隨佔領軍進駐,見到了廣島剩下來的樣子。他被升為中士。後來他拒絕執行一項懲處同袍的命令,因為他認為沒有任何懲罰是正當的;他被降回二等兵。1946 年 1 月,他離開了軍隊。
He went back to Princeton for a doctorate in moral philosophy, and married Margaret Fox in 1949. They had four children. A year at Oxford in 1952 brought him into contact with Isaiah Berlin and the legal philosopher H. L. A. Hart. Fifty years after the bombing, in one of the few pieces he wrote for a general audience, he argued that the destruction of Hiroshima had been a grave wrong.
他回到普林斯頓攻讀道德哲學的博士學位,並在 1949 年與瑪格麗特・福克斯結婚。他們有四個孩子。1952 年在牛津的一年,使他接觸到以撒・柏林與法哲學家哈特。原爆五十年後,在他為一般讀者寫的少數幾篇文章之一裡,他主張摧毀廣島是一個嚴重的錯誤。
A long book 一本很長的書
He taught at Cornell and at MIT, and in 1962 moved to Harvard, where he remained until he retired. In 1958 he had published a paper called “Justice as Fairness.” He spent the next thirteen years turning it into a book, circulating drafts among students and colleagues and rewriting in response. A Theory of Justice appeared in 1971. Its preface begins, “This is a long book, not only in pages.” At the time many philosophers believed that their subject could say nothing substantive about how society should be arranged. The book changed that. Nozick, who disagreed with nearly all of it, wrote that political philosophers must now either work within Rawls’s theory or explain why not.
他在康乃爾與麻省理工任教;1962 年轉到哈佛,在那裡一直待到退休。1958 年,他發表了一篇論文,題為〈作為公平的正義〉。接下來的十三年,他把它變成一本書:把草稿傳給學生與同事看,再根據回應重寫。《正義論》在 1971 年問世。它的序言開頭是:「這是一本很長的書,不只是頁數上。」當時許多哲學家相信,他們這門學問對於「社會應該怎麼安排」說不出任何實質的東西。這本書改變了這一點。幾乎完全不同意它的諾齊克寫道:政治哲學家現在要嘛在羅爾斯的理論之內工作,要嘛解釋為什麼不。
Fame did not change his habits. He gave almost no interviews and described himself as having a horror of the limelight. Students remember a teacher who took careful notes on what they said and presented the philosophers he lectured on in their strongest form. In 1989 student protesters in Tiananmen Square held up copies of his book. In 1999 he received the National Humanities Medal. A series of strokes from 1995 slowed his work, and he died at home in Lexington, Massachusetts, in 2002, aged eighty-one.
名聲並沒有改變他的習慣。他幾乎不接受訪問,並且形容自己對鎂光燈有一種恐懼。學生記得的是這樣一位老師:他仔細記下他們說的話;講到哪一位哲學家,就以那位哲學家最強的形式來呈現。1989 年,天安門廣場上抗議的學生舉起了他的書。1999 年,他獲頒美國國家人文獎章。從 1995 年開始的一連串中風,拖慢了他的工作;2002 年,他在麻薩諸塞州萊辛頓的家中去世,享年八十一歲。
- 1921Born in Baltimore生於巴爾的摩
- 1928–29Two younger brothers die of illnesses caught from him兩個弟弟被他傳染而病逝
- 1943Graduates from Princeton and enlists普林斯頓畢業,入伍
- 1945With the occupying army in Japan, sees Hiroshima隨佔領軍到日本,見到廣島
- 1950PhD in philosophy at Princeton在普林斯頓取得哲學博士
- 1958“Justice as Fairness” published發表〈作為公平的正義〉
- 1962Joins the Harvard faculty到哈佛任教
- 1971A Theory of Justice《正義論》
- 1993Political Liberalism《政治自由主義》
- 2002Dies in Lexington, Massachusetts在麻州萊辛頓去世
The central idea · 核心觀念
Justice as fairness 作為公平的正義
Rawls begins from a conviction: “Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override.” Utilitarianism, the leading theory of his day, could not explain this. If only the total of happiness matters, the suffering of a few may be outweighed by the gains of many. Rawls wanted a theory in which each person counts separately. He found it in the old idea of the social contract, which he made more abstract. Principles are just if free and equal people would agree to them in a fair situation. He described that situation as an original position in which the parties stand behind a veil of ignorance: “no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities.”
羅爾斯從一個信念出發:「每一個人都擁有一種基於正義的不可侵犯性,即使是整個社會的福利也不能凌駕其上。」他那個時代的主流理論是功利主義;而它解釋不了這一點。如果只有幸福的總量要緊,那麼少數人的痛苦就可以被多數人的得益蓋過去。羅爾斯要的是一個「每個人各別算數」的理論。他在社會契約這個古老的觀念裡找到了它,並且把它變得更抽象。如果自由而平等的人會在一個公平的情境裡同意某些原則,這些原則就是正義的。他把那個情境描述為一個「原初立場」,其中的各方都站在一道無知之幕的後面:「沒有人知道自己在社會裡的位置、階級地位或社會身分;他也不知道自己在天生資質與能力的分配上運氣如何。」
From that position, he argued, two principles would be chosen, and in a fixed order. First, equal basic liberties for all, which may not be traded for economic gain. Second, fair equality of opportunity, and inequalities only where they benefit the least advantaged. He did not claim to have deduced these from nothing. His method, which he called reflective equilibrium, is to move back and forth between principles and our firmest particular judgments, such as that slavery is unjust, adjusting each to the other until they fit. Behind the principles is a view of society as a fair system of cooperation over generations, in which the lucky and the unlucky share one another’s fate.
他主張,從那個位置會選出兩條原則,而且有固定的先後順序。第一,人人享有平等的基本自由;它們不可以拿來交換經濟上的好處。第二,公平的機會平等;以及只有在對最不利者有好處的地方,才容許不平等。他並沒有宣稱這些是他憑空演繹出來的。他的方法,他稱之為「反思的均衡」:在原則與我們最堅定的個別判斷(例如「奴隸制是不正義的」)之間來回移動,互相調整,直到兩者相符。在這些原則的背後,是把社會看成一個跨越世代的公平合作體系;在其中,幸運的人與不幸的人分擔彼此的命運。
Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.正義是社會制度的首要德性,正如真理是思想體系的首要德性。
The first sentence of the argument. He goes on: a theory however elegant must be rejected if it is untrue, and laws however efficient must be reformed if they are unjust. 整個論證的第一句。他接著說:一個理論不管多麼優雅,如果不真,就必須拒絕;法律不管多麼有效率,如果不正義,就必須改革。
The strongest objection · 最強的反駁
Whose veil? 誰的幕?
The objection that troubled Rawls most came from critics such as Michael Sandel, who are often called communitarians. The parties behind the veil know nothing of their religion, their family, or their idea of a good life. Sandel argued that such a chooser is no one in particular, and that the choice is rigged from the start in favor of a liberal view on which people are, at bottom, independent choosers and their attachments are optional. For most people, their faith or their duty to their parents is part of who they are. Asking them to set it aside when they reason about justice, he said, is taking a side.
最讓羅爾斯困擾的反駁,來自桑德爾這樣的批評者;他們常被稱為社群主義者。幕後的各方對自己的宗教、家庭,或自己對美好人生的想法一無所知。桑德爾主張:這樣的一個選擇者,誰也不是;而這個選擇從一開始就被動了手腳,偏向一種自由主義的看法:人在根本上是獨立的選擇者,他們的種種牽繫都是可有可無的。對大多數人來說,他們的信仰、或他們對父母的責任,是「他們是誰」的一部分。他說,要求他們在推理正義的時候把它擱在一邊,本身就是選了邊。
Rawls took the point seriously enough to write a second book. In Political Liberalism he no longer presented justice as fairness as the truth about morality. He presented it as a basis on which citizens who disagree deeply about religion and the good can still live together on terms each can accept from within his own tradition. He called this an overlapping consensus. Critics on the other side, such as G. A. Cohen, thought he had conceded too much, and that a theory of justice should say what is right whether or not everyone can be brought to accept it.
羅爾斯很認真地看待這一點,認真到寫了第二本書。在《政治自由主義》裡,他不再把「作為公平的正義」當作關於道德的真理來提出。他把它提出來,當作一個基礎:在宗教與善的問題上有深刻分歧的公民,仍然可以在這個基礎上共同生活,而其條件是每個人從自己的傳統內部都能接受的。他稱之為「交疊共識」。另一邊的批評者,例如柯亨,認為他讓步太多了;他們認為,一個正義理論應該說出什麼是對的,不管是不是每個人都能被帶到接受它。
How we know · 史料
A theory for one country? 只給一個國家用的理論?
The veil hides a person’s class and talents. Many readers expected that it would also hide his nationality. Being born in a poor country is as much a matter of luck as being born into a poor family, and it affects a life far more. Philosophers who had learned from Rawls, among them Thomas Pogge and Charles Beitz, drew what seemed the obvious conclusion: the difference principle should apply to the whole world.
那道幕遮住了一個人的階級與才能。許多讀者預期,它也會遮住他的國籍。生在一個窮國,跟生在一個窮人家一樣是運氣的事;而它對一生的影響大得多。向羅爾斯學過的哲學家,其中有博格與貝茲,得出了那個看起來很明顯的結論:差異原則應該用在全世界。
Rawls refused. In The Law of Peoples he argued that justice as fairness is a theory for a single society whose members share institutions and take part in governing them. Between peoples he proposed a shorter list of duties: to respect human rights, to refrain from aggressive war, and to assist societies burdened by unfavorable conditions until they can manage their own affairs. He set no continuing duty to reduce inequality between nations. Whether this was sound realism about what distant peoples can owe one another, or a failure to follow his own argument, is still disputed (Big Questions A24).
羅爾斯拒絕了。在《萬民法》裡,他主張「作為公平的正義」是給單一社會用的理論;這個社會的成員共享著制度,並且參與治理它們。在各個民族之間,他提出的是一張比較短的義務清單:尊重人權、不發動侵略戰爭;以及協助那些被不利條件拖累的社會,直到它們能管理自己的事務為止。他沒有設下一個持續縮小國與國之間不平等的義務。這究竟是對「遙遠的民族之間能彼此欠什麼」的穩健現實感,還是沒有把自己的論證貫徹到底,至今仍有爭議(大哉問 A24)。
Dharma and the West · 佛法與西方哲學
Rawls and the Buddha 羅爾斯與佛陀
The veil of ignorance is an exercise in thinking without “I” and “mine.” For the length of one argument a person sets aside his name, his family, his advantages, and his interests, and asks what would be good from no position in particular. Buddhist training aims at something similar as a lasting change. The meditations on loving-kindness extend to all beings the wish one naturally has for oneself, and the teaching of non-self holds that the line we draw around “my” welfare has no ultimate basis. Śāntideva’s argument that suffering should be removed simply because it is suffering, whoever’s it is, would be at home behind the veil (Dharma and Western Philosophy D19).
無知之幕,是一個不帶著「我」與「我的」來思考的練習。在一個論證的時間裡,一個人把自己的名字、家庭、優勢與利益擱在一邊,問:不從任何特定的位置來看,什麼是好的?佛教的修習要達成的,是類似的東西,而且是持久的改變。慈心的修習,把一個人自然為自己懷有的願望,擴及一切眾生;而無我的教導主張:我們繞著「我的」福祉劃出的那條線,沒有究竟的根據。寂天的論證是:苦應當被除去,只因為它是苦,不管是誰的;這個論證放在那道幕的後面,再合適不過(佛法與西方哲學 D19)。
They differ on luck. For Rawls, where and to whom a person is born is arbitrary, and justice is largely the work of correcting for it. In the Buddhist account birth is connected with past action, and so it is not arbitrary. The two views come apart less in practice than one might expect. The Buddha denied that birth fixes a person’s worth: “You’re not a lowlife by birth, nor by birth are you a brahmin. You’re a lowlife by your deeds, by deeds you’re a brahmin.” He admitted people of every class to his community on equal terms. And the tradition does not treat a person’s past as a reason for others to withhold help. They differ more deeply in aim. Rawls asks what institutions free and equal citizens could accept. The Buddha asks how a person comes to stop grasping at a share at all.
他們在運氣上不同。對羅爾斯來說,一個人生在哪裡、生給誰,是任意的;而正義大體上就是矯正它的工作。照佛教的說法,出生與過去的行為有關,所以不是任意的。這兩種看法在實踐上的分歧,比人們預期的小。佛陀否認出身決定一個人的價值:「不因出身而成為賤民,不因出身而成為婆羅門;因行為而成為賤民,因行為而成為婆羅門。」他以平等的條件,接納每一個階級的人進入他的僧團。而且這個傳統並不把一個人的過去,當成別人可以不伸出援手的理由。他們更深的不同在目標上。羅爾斯問的是:自由而平等的公民能接受什麼樣的制度?佛陀問的是:一個人怎麼樣才不再抓取自己的那一份?
Terms of art · 哲學術語
Words that come with him 跟著他一起來的詞
Rawls’s name for his theory: just principles are those that would be agreed to in a fair situation.
羅爾斯為自己的理論取的名字:正義的原則,就是會在一個公平的情境裡被同意的那些原則。
The imagined situation of choice behind the veil of ignorance.
在無知之幕後面的那個設想中的選擇情境。
Things every person is presumed to want whatever else he wants: liberties, opportunities, income, and the bases of self-respect.
不管一個人還要什麼,都被推定為想要的東西:自由、機會、收入,以及自尊的基礎。
The state reached when one’s principles and one’s considered judgments have been adjusted to fit each other.
一個人的原則與他深思過的判斷,經過互相調整而相符時所達到的狀態。
Agreement on political principles among people who hold different religious and moral views, each for his own reasons.
抱持不同宗教與道德觀的人,各自基於自己的理由,對政治原則達成的共識。
The main institutions of a society taken together: its constitution, economy, property law, and family.
一個社會的主要制度合在一起:它的憲法、經濟、財產法與家庭。
Reading check · 理解測驗
Did it land? 讀懂了嗎
1. What does the veil of ignorance hide from the parties?
2. Why did Rawls reject utilitarianism?
3. How did Rawls change his theory in Political Liberalism?
Go further · 延伸
Where he appears 他出現在哪幾課
- John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, revised edition (1999) ↗Read sections 1–4, 11–13, and 24 first. 先讀第 1–4、11–13 與 24 節。
- John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (2001) ↗His own short version, written late, with replies to critics. 他晚年自己寫的短版本,附有對批評者的回應。
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “John Rawls” ↗The best free overview of all three books. 涵蓋三本書的最佳免費概述。
- Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice (2007) ↗A short life by a former student, followed by a clear account of the theory. 一位昔日學生寫的簡短傳記,後面接著對這個理論的清楚說明。