论文部分内容阅读
以罗尔斯、Harsanyi为代表的平等主义和功利主义的两种分配正义观存在着很大的理论分歧。对“移情”问题的处理和把握可以被看做是两个理论之间最大的不同。而“移情”这一心理学概念又把演化理论引入到对分配正义的讨论之中。肯·宾默尔提出了自然正义论的基本框架,对罗尔斯和Harsanyi的理论进行了基于演化和讨价还价理论的调和。通过对宾默尔的“自然正义论”的贡献的梳理和对其理论难点的分析,我们可以进一步地明了演化理论对分配正义的可能贡献以及演化的分配正义理论可能遇到的理论困难。
The distributive justice view of egalitarianism and utilitarianism represented by Rawls and Harsanyi has great theoretical differences. The handling and grasping of the “empathy” problem can be seen as the biggest difference between the two theories. The concept of “empathy”, a psychological concept, introduced the theory of evolution into the discussion of distributive justice. Ken Binim put forward the basic framework of the theory of natural justice, and reconciled Rawls and Harsanyi’s theory based on evolution and bargaining theory. Through sorting out the contribution of “Natural Justice ” of Pinimore and analyzing its theoretical difficulties, we can further understand the theoretical difficulties that evolutionary theory may face in distributive justice and the evolutionary theory of distributive justice .