...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Ethics & Global Politics >The fool and the franchiser: formal justice in the political theories of Hobbes and Rawls
【24h】

The fool and the franchiser: formal justice in the political theories of Hobbes and Rawls

机译：傻瓜和特许经营者：霍布斯和罗尔斯的政治理论中的形式正义

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls are usually portrayed in antagonistic terms. While Hobbes, one of the first scholars to translate Thucydides, is often held to be an archetypal realist, Rawls, a self-proclaimed follower of Kant, is frequently said to argue from an explicit normative position. In this paper, I try to demonstrate that the two philosophers have more in common than is generally thought. Drawing on Hobbes's answer to the fool and Rawls's analogy of the franchiser, I suggest that there is a powerful link between the two philosophers that can tell us something valuable about their theories of formal justice. Against Brian Barry's characterization of Hobbes as an advocate of justice as mutual advantage and Rawls as a proponent of both justice as mutual advantage and justice as impartiality, I argue that the two philosophers adhere to one and the same tradition of justice, justice as reciprocity, which bases obligations of reciprocity not only on explicit express, but also on tacit acceptance of benefits.
机译：托马斯·霍布斯和约翰·罗尔斯通常被描述成对立的人物。霍布斯是最早翻译修昔底德的学者之一，通常被认为是原型现实主义者，而自称为康德的追随者罗尔斯经常被认为是从明确的规范立场出发进行辩论的。在本文中，我试图证明这两个哲学家的共同点超出了人们的普遍预期。我借鉴霍布斯对傻瓜的回答以及罗尔斯对特许经营者的类比，建议在两位哲学家之间建立强有力的联系，这可以告诉我们有关他们形式正义理论的一些有价值的信息。反对布莱恩·巴里（Brian Barry）将霍布斯（Hobbes）辩称为正义是互惠的倡导者，而罗尔斯（Rawls）则是将正义视为互惠和正义是公正的拥护者，我认为这两位哲学家都遵循一个相同的正义传统，即正义就是互惠，互惠义务不仅基于明确的表达，而且还基于默许的利益接受。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号