谨慎选择，大胆追求
中国政治道德判断，往往流于简单化和盲目化。诉求方面，朴素的实用主义泛滥， 而论证方面，则盲目的直觉主义横行。 素朴的实用主义让我们的诉求缺乏远见。盲目的直觉主义则让我们的论证缺少信服力。人们提出一个观点或批评一个观点往往想当然的下结论，其根据往往是一些潜意识的固有观念。合起来说，这是一种常识主义，我们在以常识的态度来对待理论，理论的严谨性和原发性被想当然的扼杀了。 这些都是千百年来积累下来的思维习惯，深入骨髓，然而，若希望中国政治道德学说真正有所进步，这两点必须加以改正。普通百姓以此思考论事尚可原谅，学者和主政者若也如此，便很可怕，也很可悲了。改正它绝非易事，须究根溯源。无外乎两点，一方面，近代以来中国传统文化虽然受到了众多的批判，传统思维方式却依然主导着人们的思维方式，一方面虽然西学东渐一直在继续，但是真正的西式思维却没有建立起来。可以这样说，无论是自我批判还是学习西方，都只做了表面工作，未及真髓。所以，我们还需要再启蒙。我们还需要一个五四运动，对传统的思维方式加以反思，诚信学习西方的思维方法。 实用主义和直觉主义在西方理论中都有很重要的地位，但是和我们的大不一样。或者说，和我们对待它们的方式大不一样。 简单说，他们持有的实用主义是经过审慎论证的，他们的直觉主义是经过反思的。 为了对二者有一个更为恰当的理解，介绍一下罗尔斯的反思的平衡是非常有益的。这是他的哲学体系的方法论，也可以说是集西方理性思维方式之大成。这个方法既重视直觉也重视理性，最重要的是二者相辅相成，达到二者的平衡。通过这样一种论证方式，既避免了盲目的直觉主义假设，也避免了无根的理性建构。从而使得理论的论证充实而饱满，具有极强的说服力。
我之所以重视对幸福观念的阐发，在于中国人的骨子里所能想望的无非是幸福。但是这个幸福被学者和政治家给扭曲了。我认为西方人所想望的也无非是个人福祉。 问题在于，在中国个人福祉完全被集体或者君主的福祉所扭曲，长期受到所谓大局利益的压迫。 这儿大局的利益不过是统治者的利益。被统治者的利益要服从于统治者的利益。哪有什么大局？真正的大局是指每一个人的利益。根据传统的论调，仿佛只有这一种大局。大局在他们那儿只是个忽悠百姓的修辞而已，实则以大局之名义图统治者之私利。所以，我要通过阐发个人主义幸福观念来告诉人们，他们才是自己生活的主人。所谓大意必须包含每一个人的利益，而且是占有平等的份量。揭露统治者的谎言，启迪人们觉悟，并奋发维护真正的大局之利，这个利同时包含着每一个体的利。利，乃幸福的物质前提。自由更不是如此，是幸福的形式条件。自由的分类以及与幸福的关系在另一文中解释过了。
My unique understanding of happiness will be the foundation of my liberal theory. I will explain an intuitive conception of happiness. It's the foundation or the goal of my theory? Obviously I am following Mill's notion, especially his emphasis on individuality and harm principle. But I will explain it in the dimension of meaning of life. It is an understanding of life. From it I explain why we should promote individual liberty and the role of government. Any theory stands on particular premise. They needs detailed explanation but does not require further qualification because it is presupposed to be the assumption of the theory, that is, the foundation of the qualification. The goal of qualification of the theory is the demonstration of the value of liberty and the obligation and limitation of government. But, my strategy is that to do the demonstration the happiness is assumed to be the goal of personal life and what government is bonded to do..
The concept of happiness is formal, that is, empty. It's the ultimate goal of each individual. The goal of each person is to maximize his happiness. However, the specific content of happiness for one person depends on his personal choice. Each person defines their own happiness according to their own judgment. One A's a rational being, uses his own capacity of reasoning to make free choice, to freely decide what is the goal of his life, what is the happiness he appreciates, what is the proper way of achieving it. Even others think it foolish, unwise and even undesirable at all, what they can do is only to persuade him to change his mind but never has the right to enforce him to obey their judgment. The agent himself has the final say about his own life.
I agreed with Mill's principle of harm. Harm to others is the only legitimate reason for interference with individual liberty.
The system does not guarantee the final achievement of happiness of each individual but will justify that it is able to guarantee the highest probability of achieving it for individual. Even the goal is not achieved, the life is still meaningful for the person, because he has been leading his life to what he really appreciates which is the source of meaning of life. The goal itself for the person who sets it is meaningful rather than only the achievement of it is the meaning of life. The foundation of it is that it is freely chosen and sincerely appreciated by it's holder. This is to say, everyone is the founder of his life meaning. The ego.
No comments:
Post a Comment