为服务性权威观辩护:三个批评及其回应

权威能否正当化是法律政治哲学中既经典又前沿的问题,它可以简单概括为:服从权威意志能否得到道德上的辩护。约瑟夫·拉兹提出的“服务性权威观”对此贡献卓著,同时也饱受争议与批评,亟须澄清和回应。“服务性权威观”的核心理念是:在遵从正确理由比个人自治更重要的条件下,如果服从权威也确实能够帮助我们更好地遵从理由,那么权威就具备正当性。有关的批评理论主要有制度性权威观、责任性权威观和程序性权威观,但是制度性权威观错误地将权威的本质视为制度性的,责任性权威观难以在责任与权威两者之间建立概念联系,而程序性权威观主张民主程序具备内在价值并不成立,民主只具备工具价值。因此,以上三种竞争性理论均未成功,服务性权威观仍旧得以捍卫。且经由这些交锋和反思,反而揭示了服务性权威观解释力的整体性与灵活性。

Defending the Service Conception of Authority:Three Critiques and Their Responses

How to justify the legitimacy of authority is a classic and frontier issue in legal and political philosophy.It can be simply summarized as this:can obedience to the will of authority be morally defended.Joseph Raz s“the service conception of authority”(SCA)has made outstanding contributions to this.At the same time,it has also been controversial and criticized,which urgently needs clarification and response.The basic idea of SCA is that under the condition that following the correct reason is more important than individual autonomy,if obeying authority can indeed help us better follow the reason,then the authority has its legitimacy.The relevant critical theories mainly include the institutional conception of authority(ICA),the accountable conception of authority(ACA)and the procedural conception of authority(PCA).However,ACA mistakenly regards the essence of authority as institution,ACA is difficult to establish a conceptual relationship between accountability and authority,and PCA advocates that democratic procedure has intrinsic values,which is not established,because democracy only has instrumental values.Therefore,the above three competitive theories are unsuccessful,SCA can still be defended.Through these debates and reflections,it instead reveals the integral and flexible interpretation power of SCA.