作　　者： (陈代东）;

机构地区： 华南师范大学政治与行政学院,广东广州510631

出　　处： 《上饶师范学院学报》 2017年第4期31-36,共6页

摘　　要： 约翰·罗尔斯在《正义论》中复兴的契约论证方式在最近三十多年从两个互竞的方向得到了拓展。一方面是大卫·高蒂尔在《协议而致道德》中通过审慎理性对利益的追求开出道德;另一方面是托马斯·斯坎伦在《我们彼此负有什么义务》中通过道德理性为道德的正当与不正当所做的辩护,这种契约主义比较忠实地追随了罗尔斯。斯坎伦的契约主义论证面临着循环论证和契约是备胎的批评。不过,对斯坎伦的契约主义循环论证和备胎的批评失之宽泛和轻率;斯坎伦的契约主义论证在选择、验证道德原则中担负了重要作用,既未循环,也非备胎。斯坎伦的契约主义是当前道德契约论中最为成熟的版本。 The way of contractualist argument that John Rawls renewed in A Theory of Justice has been developed in two competing directions in the recent thirty years. On＇the one hand, David Gauthier, in Morals by Agreement, put the moral theory in pursuit of profits based on prudential rationality. On the other hand, Thomas Scanlon defended for the morality of right and wrong based on moral reasonableness in What We Owe to Each Other, and his eontraetu- alism faithfully followed Rawls＂ approach. However, Scanlon＇s contractualism is facing the criticism of circularity and spare wheel. The article points out that eriticism is too broad and reckless; in his moral theory, contractualism plays a very important role in selecting and testing moral principles. It is neither circular nor the spare wheel. Scanlon＇s cont- raetualism is the most sophisticated version of doctrines of moral contract.

关 键 词： 托马斯 斯坎伦 契约主义 循环论证 备胎