商业研究

• 经济学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

批判视野下罗尔斯和森的分配正义理论之比较

朱成全1,李东杨2   

  1. 东北财经大学 1.马克思主义学院;经济学院,辽宁 大连 116025
  • 收稿日期:2017-05-14 出版日期:2017-09-22
  • 作者简介:朱成全(1963-),男,江苏扬州人,东北财经大学马克思主义学院教授,博士生导师,经济学博士,研究方向:科学哲学与经济学方法论;李东杨(1987-),女,黑龙江佳木斯人,东北财经大学经济学院博士研究生,研究方向:经济学方法论。
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金重大项目“社会主义与市场经济深度融合研究”,项目编号:2015YZD08;辽宁省马克思主义学院重大研究方向立项课题“习近平治国理政经济战略思想研究”,项目编号:L15ZDA003。

The Comparison of Rawls and Sen′s Distributive Justice Theory in Critical PerspectiveZHU

Cheng-quan1, LI Dong-yang2   

  1. 1.College of Marxism,Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, Dalian 116025, China; 2.College of Economics, Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, Dalian 116025, China
  • Received:2017-05-14 Online:2017-09-22

摘要: 本文围绕约翰·罗尔斯和阿马蒂亚·森关于分配正义理论中基本善和可行能力的争论而展开,认为森的分配正义理论采取一种面向实际的现实研究方法,着眼于现实的对比,因而更具合理性;二者理论的相同点表现在避免了效用比较问题、对非收入因素的关注、对弱势群体的关注和重视异质个体的多样性特征,不同点表现在对于自由追求标准不同、比较指标范围不同、差别原则适用对象不同和理论所要达到的目的不同。以马克思辩证法思想为指导对两者理论进行哲学批判,并综合二者的互补性从分配制度和政策上探索有效治理中国贫富差距问题的对策更具有合理性。

关键词: 分配正义, 贫富差距, 基本善, 可行能力

Abstract: This paper revolves around the debate of “basic goodness” and “practical ability”of John Rolls and Sen′s(Amartya Sen) distributive justice theory and thinks that Sen′s distributive justice theory is more reasonable,because it takes a face to the reality of the actual research method and focuses on the comparison of reality;the similarities of the two theories lie in avoiding utility comparison problem, concerning non income factors, attenting social vulnerable groups and individual diversity characteristics, and the differences lie in pursuing freedom standard is different,the index range is different, the application to the object of distinction principle is different and the purpose of the theory is different. With the guidance of Marx′s dialectical thought, this paper makes the Philosophical critics of the two theories,and summarizes the complementary of the two theories, to explore effective countermeasures governing China′s gap between rich and poor from distribution system and policy.

Key words: distributive justice, gap between rich and poor, basic goodness, practical ability