[1]王润稼.天赋是应得的吗?——罗尔斯和诺齐克关于天赋理论的分歧[J].江西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2013,(02):57-62.
 WANG Runjia.Does Talent Deserve to Have?——On the Differences between Rawls' s and Nozick' s Theory of Talent[J].,2013,(02):57-62.
点击复制

天赋是应得的吗?——罗尔斯和诺齐克关于天赋理论的分歧()
分享到:

《江西师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)[ISSN:1006-6977/CN:61-1281/TN]

卷:
期数:
2013年02期
页码:
57-62
栏目:
出版日期:
2013-03-01

文章信息/Info

Title:
Does Talent Deserve to Have?——On the Differences between Rawls' s and Nozick' s Theory of Talent
作者:
王润稼;
中国人民大学 哲学院,北京,100872
Author(s):
WANG Runjia
关键词:
天赋道德应得权利应得罗尔斯诺齐克
Keywords:
talent deserve to have in moralities deserve to have in rights Rawls Nozick
分类号:
B82-09
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
罗尔斯与诺齐克在天赋理论上存在重大分歧。天赋由于自身的特质,并不属于道德范畴,因而无法对其做出道德评价以证明天赋在道德上是否应得。但人们有着享有自身天赋的自由与资格,个人天赋是一种权利上的应得。如果将天赋视作集体财产而予以强行剥夺,势必会造成对天赋较高者权利的侵犯。
Abstract:
There were a large number of differences between Rawls's and Nozick's theory of talent.Talent does not belong to the realm of ethics due to its own characteristics,so we can't make a moral evaluation to prove that whether talent deserve to have in moralities.But people have the freedom and qualification to enjoy their own talent,individual talent is deserve to have in rights.If the talent is deprived as collective property,the right of people with higher talent will inevitably be encroached.

参考文献/References:

[1]〔美〕罗尔斯.正义论[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2009.
[2]〔美〕罗伯特·诺齐克.无政府、国家与乌托邦[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1991.
[3]〔美〕托马斯·内格尔.人的问题[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2004.
[4]David Gauthier.Justice and Natural Endowment[M].Chandran Kukathas(edited),John Rawls.London and New York:Routledge,2003.
[5]〔美〕R.B.布兰特.道德权利概念及其功能[J].哲学译丛,1991,(5).
[6]〔德〕康 德.法的形而上学原理——权利的科学[M].北京:商务印书馆,1991.
[7]〔英〕米尔恩.人的权利与人的多样性——人权哲学[M].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1995.

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01