自我保存的自由——霍布斯不被强迫自证其罪权利思想研究

作为近代政治哲学的奠基人之一,霍布斯关于不被强迫自证其罪权利思想既有传承,也有发扬光大之处。他用自我保存的人性论和契约论首次对其进行了严密的论证。正是自他开始,不被强迫自证其罪权利才第一次获得了近代个人主义意义上的证明,被视为每一个人都不可剥夺的自我保存的自由。其思想于我们当下仍有现实意义。     

The Hobbesian Case for Multilateralism

In this paper an analysis of Hobbes' argument in favor of the Leviathan is combined with a reassessment in a new security environment. The analysis shows that Hobbes' premises are complex and lead to conclusions that differ from the realist as well as from the world‐state position, both attributed to Hobbesian logic in IR theory. A strict application of the Hobbesian argument in today's security context leads to a rationale of multilateral institution‐building among states. In the first part of the paper the internationalist analogy in the concept of war of all against all is uncovered and analyzed in relation to the security dilemma, domestic analogy, and methodological individualism. The second part reassesses the Hobbesian security rationale in a security environment which is assumed to be shaped by transnational terrorism and nuclear WMD.     

霍布斯和洛克自然状态思想比较研究

自然状态是一种前公民状态,是社会契约论说明政府权力合法性来源的逻辑起点。尽管霍布斯和洛克同为17世纪英国政治思想家,但他们的观点却有很大的不同。他们从不同的人性出发,所描写的自然状态及自然状态中要遵循的自然法、享有的自然权利及走出自然状态的方式也有很大的差异。     

The Aporia of Collective Violence

From the theoretical perspective of René Girard, Walter Benjamin and Jacques Derrida the Rwanda genocide of 1994 may be interpreted as an instance of foundational violence. Given the constant reference in the Rwanda genocide discourse to the failed revolution of 1959, it is perhaps rather a case of deferred foundational violence. Useful as this notion of ‘foundational violence’ may be, as theoretical category it is also hugely challenging because the implicit claim is not just historical (‘states are routinely founded on violence’) but analytical (‘founding moments are per definition violent’). The result is a profound tension between, on the one hand, the need to understand the event as somehow unexceptional or typical of the founding of new socio-political orders and, on the other hand, the need to judge it as exceptional, an ‘outrage’, a crime against humanity. This paper treats the tension between the unexceptional and exceptional as aporetic, that is, as a profound puzzle consisting of two equally valid imperatives which are nonetheless mutually exclusive. It is also an attempt to find a way beyond the impasse.

三种古典社会契约理论之比较——以霍布斯、洛克、卢梭为例

社会契约理论是一套关于国家起源以及政治制度设计的较为完整的理论体系,古典社会契约理论的代表人物霍布斯、洛克、卢梭都勾画了自己的社会契约理论。作为当时具有进步意义的政治思想。社会契约理论为资产阶级反对君权神授、推翻封建专制的统治提供了强大的思想武器。但是,由于这几种社会契约理论在伦理基础和时代背景等方面的不同,因此,三者的理论又表现出一定的差异。     

论洛克的私力救济思想

作为英国近代伟大的哲学家,洛克认为人类先后经历了自然状态和政治社会两个阶段。在自然状态中只有私力救济,由于私力救济存在缺陷,使人们不得不建立国家实行公力救济。但即使在政治社会中,私力救济也将局部存在。洛克的思想是建立在其经验主义的认识论、自私的人性论和独特的契约论基础之上的。现在洛克的思想虽已部分失去了真理性,但其关于政治社会中私力救济的论断仍是不刊之论。正视洛克的警告,加强国家政权建设,至少为贫弱者提供最低限度的救济,这正是时代赋予我们的使命。     

霍布斯的“身体宪法哲学”

面对古典"灵魂宪法哲学"所造成的秩序混乱,霍布斯从身体出发对宪法本性进行新的探求。宪法哲学的道德基础是自我保存的自然权利,它根源于对暴死的恐惧。原初的宪法是契约,契约来自立约人的意志,经过"代表"的伟大虚构,它实质上来自于主权者的意志。主权者的意志体现是法律,它规定了主权者和公民的基本权利义务关系。由霍布斯奠定的现代宪法哲学放弃追求有德性的生活,求取生命的保存、身体的自由和舒适。由于古典公民德性的缺失,现代人的身体面临着被国家权力既保护又专制的命运。