臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本篇論文的目的在於比較兩位政治哲學家，John Rawls與David Miller對於國家的價值的論證。這兩位哲學家都認為國家應該優先地提供某些價值──我將這些價值稱為國家核心價值。論文分為四個部份：第一個部分是引言；第二個部份則是介紹Rawls的理論，說明Rawls的理論支持國家應該首要提供什麼價值，並說明我所定義的公平互惠理論參考Rawls理論中的哪些概念與論證；第三個部分是介紹Miller的理論，說明Miller的理論支持國家應該提供首要什麼價值，並說明我所定義的民族理論參考Miller理論中的哪些概念與論證；第四部份則是比較上述兩種理論的優劣。
在論文的第一部份，首先簡介與台灣民族相關的文化與政治，並說明它們與論文的關聯性。接下來則是說明與定義何謂國家核心價值。最後，本文提出「可行性」與「可欲性」此二標準作為判斷國家核心價值優劣的判準。
在論文的第二部份則是先介紹Rawls的理論，並說明Rawls的理論會支持國家應該首要提供什麼價值。Rawls認為社會中的公民應該支持一個「公平的社會合作體系」，而Rawls認為社會當中的公民會認同「公平的社會合作體系」本身就是好的，因為人類普遍認可公平互惠的合作關係本身是好的。而國家是Rawls理論中的理想社會中的一種型態，因此我判斷Rawls的理論會支持國家應該首要使公民擁有公平互惠的合作關係。接著我定義支持「公平互惠」(的合作關係)這樣的國家核心價值的理論為公平互惠理論，並說明我所說的公平互惠理論參考Rawls理論中的哪些概念與論證。這並不代表Rawls在著作中有直接表示一個國家應當如何，而是表示我們從Rawls的理論當中可以合理主張Rawls支持公平互惠的國家。
而在論文第三部份則是說明了Miller 的理論。Miller認為對於一個民族團體而言，其可以政治自決本身就是好的。民族團體的政治自決同時可以使該民族團體獲得他們認為跟他們的民族相關且具備本有價值的事物，而成立一個國家則是一個民族團體可以政治自決的優良手段。因此我判斷Miller的理論會支持國家應該首要提供該與國家成員普遍屬於的民族團體相關的價值。接著我定義支持「民族」這樣的國家核心價值的理論為民族理論，並說明我所說的民族理論參考Miller理論中的哪些概念與論證。
在論文的最後一部分藉由「可行性」與「可欲性」來判斷公平互惠理論與民族理論的優劣。兩種理論都有可取之處。但公平互惠理論藉由人類的互惠心理增強社會的團結意識，而民族理論則藉由讓公民認同他們的民族身分來增強社會的團結意識。訴諸民族身分增強社會的團結意識無法保證社會是一個互惠的社會，並且公民容易對於民族身分的概念有爭議，而訴諸人類的互惠心理不易有上述的問題。經過比較之後，結論為公平互惠理論優於民族理論。

The aim of this essay is to compare two views about national values, respectively based on John Rawls's and David Miller's political philosophy. This essay is divided into four parts. The first part is the introduction, explaining what I mean by‘national values’. The second part introduces Rawls's theory of justice and explains how his account of fair reciprocity would support the idea that certain kind of values should be primarily provided by the state. The third part introduces Miller's theory and explains how his account of nationality would support the idea that certain kind of values should be primarily provided by the state. The final part compares the two views introduced and discussed in part two and part three.
In the first part of the essay, I also briefly introduce Taiwan's public discourses and politics about nationality, and explain their relationship with this essay. Then I introduce and define the concept of national values. Finally, I provide "feasibility" and "desirability" as the criteria for assessing views about national values.
In the second part of the essay, I introduce Rawls's account of fair reciprocity. I pointed out that according to Rawls's theory, the citizens as free and equal moral persons would and should support the idea that a society is a fair system of cooperation. I argue that according to Rawls's theory of justice, citizens would think that society, well-ordered by principles realizing the idea of a fair system of cooperation is an intrinsically good society because they generally recognize fair reciprocal cooperation is good in itself. State is a kind of society in Rawls's theory. Therefore, I find Rawls's theory would support that the idea that fair reciprocal cooperation should be taken to be the national values for constitutional democracy. Admittedly, It does not mean that Rawls's writings directly address the issue of nation values. What I contend in this essay is that we can reasonably claim that his theory would support the idea that fair reciprocity should be the national value for a constitutional democracy.
In the third part of the essay, I introduce Miller's theory of nationality and explain how his theory would support the idea that nationality should be taken into account in developing national values for constitutional democracy. Miller argues that for a national group, political self-determination is good in itself. A national group's political self-determination can make this group gain something which they thought has intrinsic value to their nationality. The idea that creating a state is a good implies that a national group has reason to be politically self-determining. Therefore, I contend that Miller's theory would support the claim that the state should primarily provide the values which are constitutive of the goodness of nationality.
In the final part of the essay, I assess Fair reciprocity theory and Nationality theory, respectively inspired by Rawls's and Miller's political philosophy, in terms of criteria, "feasiblilty" and "desirability". I think these two theories are satisfactory in terms of feasiblilty. However, Fair reciprocity theory strengthens solidarity of society by the reciprocity of human psychology, and Nationality theory strengthens solidarity of society by making citizens recognize their national identity. And I argue that strengthening solidarity of society by appealing to the national identity can't guarantee society to be a reciprocal society, and citizens may disagree about the concepts of national identity easily. Appealing to the reciprocity of human psychology doesn't have the above problems. Finally I contend that Fair reciprocity theory is better than Nationality theory.

目次
1：問題意識...................................................................................1
1.1：引言.....................................................................................1
1.2：價值的定義................................................................................4
1.3：國家與價值................................................................................6
1.4：國家核心價值..............................................8
1.5：評價國家核心價值的標準.........................................................................12
1.6：John Rawls、David Miller 的理論與公平互惠理論、民族理論的關係.15
2：公平互惠作為國家核心價值：以Rawls 為本....................................................18
2.1：公平互惠的概念.......................................................................18
2.1.1：「公平」與「互惠」的基本概念....................................................18
2.1.2：比較「公平互惠」與「公正無偏」、「互利」之差異..................22
2.1.3：以差異原則作為Rawls 實踐公平互惠精神的例子......................24
2.2：「公平互惠」作為國家首要提供價值之論證...........................................26
2.2.1：兩種不可取的立場：全面學說與暫定協議..................................26
2.2.2：有道德二能力的公民......................................................................32
2.2.2.1：人類是一種可以擁有善概念的動物...................................33
2.2.2.2：人類是一種以德報德的傾向的社會性動物.......................34
2.2.3：正義感的形成..................................................................................38
2.2.3.1：前民主文化時代...................................................................38
2.2.3.2：「公平的社會合作體系」中長大的公民的正義感.............42
2.2.3.3：正義感的性質.......................................................................47
2.2.4「公平的社會合作體系」是一個比較好的社會秩序嗎？..............49
2.2.4.1：從和效益主義比較談「公平的社會合作體系」的好處...49
2.2.4.2：從社會聯合體的概念談「公平的社會合作體系」的好處52
2.2.4.3：從忌妒的問題談「公平的社會合作體系」的好處...........54
2.3：從Rawls 的理論得出公平互惠理論.........................................................57
3：民族作為國家核心價值：以Miller 為本............................................................60
3.1：民族身分的概念.........................................................................................60
3.1.1：「身分」的倫理觀與倫理個別主義................................................61
3.1.2 民族是什麼.......................................................67
3.1.3 從倫理個別主義談民族身分.............................................................75
3.2：「民族」作為國家首要提供價值之論證...................................................77
3.2.1：何謂民族國家..................................................................................77
3.2.2：「民族國家」是一個比較好的社會秩序嗎？................................78
3.2.2.1：從民族團體的自治談民族國家的好處...............................78
3.2.2.2：從國家效率談民族國家的好處...........................................82
3.2.2.3：從民主文化的建立談民族國家的好處...............................84
3.2.2.4：從維護多元文化談民族國家的好處...................................86
3.2.3：可行性問題：如何維護國家成員共享的民族身分......................91
3.3：從Miller 的理論得出民族理論.................................................................94
4：比較兩種國家核心價值........................................................97
4.1：兩種國家核心價值的共同性....................................................97
4.1.1：互惠現象與團體意識共同存在......................................................97
4.1.2：尊重社會的多元性..........................................................................99
4.2：兩種國家核心價值的差異性...................................................................100
4.2.1：互惠現象與團體意識的形成順序不同........................................100
4.2.2：從自由主義與社群主義之辯談論兩種理論之差異....................101
4.3：兩種國家核心價值之優劣.......................................................................104
4.3.1：第一種可行性的比較：概念自身的爭議程度............................104
4.3.2：第二種可行性的比較：團體意識的有效程度............................ 112
4.3.3：可欲性問題：國家核心價值的價值本身優劣比較.................... 115
4.4：國家核心價值比較後的結論................................................................... 119
參考書目.......................................................................................123

Bell (2012), Daniel. "Communitarianism", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2012. Retrieved 2014, December 28, from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/.
Dancy (2013), Jonathan. "Moral Particularism", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2013. Retrieved 2014, December 9, from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-particularism/.
FØllesdal (2000), Andreas. "The Future Soul of Europe: Nationalism or Just
Patriotism? A Critique of David Miller's Defence of Nationality" in Journal of Peace
Research 37(4), 503-518, 2000, July.
Gibbard (1991), Allan. "Constructing justice" in Philosophy and Public Affairs 20(3):
264-279, 1991, summer.
Gleason (1980), Philip. "American Identity and Americanization&" in The Harvard
Encyclopaedia of American Ethnic Groups, Stephan Thernstorm (ed.), Harvard
University Press, 1980.
Hibbert (2008), Neil. "Citizenship and the Welfare State: A Critique of David Miller's
Theory of Nationality" Canadian Political Science Association41(1): 169-186, 2008,
March.
Hobbes (1999), Thomas. Leviathan. The University of Oregon, 1999. Retrieved
2005 , May 4, from http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Erbear/hobbes/leviathan.html.
Kagan (1998), Shelly. Normative Ethics. Westview Press, 1998.
Kymlicka (2002), Will. Contemporary Political Philosophy, second edition, Oxford
University Press, 2002.
Mill (2003) John.Utilitarianism and On liberty, second edition, edited by Mary
Warnock. Blackwell publishing Press, 2003.
Miller (1995), David. On Nationality. Oxford University Press, 1995.
Miller (2000a), David. "In Defence of Naitonality" in Citizenship and National
Identity. Polity Press, 2000.
Miller (2000b), David. "Communitarianism: Left, Right and Center " in Citizenship
and National Identity. Polity Press, 2000.
Miller (2000c), David. Principles of Social Justice. Harvard University Press, 2000.
Miller (2007), David. National responsibility and Global Justice. Oxford University
Press, 2007.
Spinner-Halev (1996), Jeff . "Rights across Borders: Immigration and the Decline of
Citizenship. by David Jacobson; On Nationality. by David Miller" The American
Political Science Review 90(4): 894-895. 1996, December.
Pogge (1989), Thomas. Realizing Rawls. Cornell University Press.
Rawls (1996), John. Political Liberalism, expand ed. Columbia University Press,
1996.
Rawls (1999a), John. A Theory of Justice, revised ed. Harvard University Press, 1999.
Rawls (1999b), John. "Justice as Reciprocity" in collected papers, edited by Samuel
Freeman, Harvard University Press, 1999, 190-224.
Rawls (1999c), John. The law of Peoples. Harvard University Press, 1999.
Rawls (1999d), John. "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited" in The law of Peoples.
Harvard University Press, 1999.
Rawls (2001), John. Justice as Fairness: a Restatement, edited by Erin Kelly. Harvard
University Press, 2001.
Schain (2010), Martin A. "Politics in France". In Comparative Politics Today, ninth
edition, Gabriel A. Almond G.Bingham Powell, Jr., Russell J. Dalton, Kaare StrØm
edited. Pearson Press , 2010, 200-251.
Weber (1991), Max. "Politics as a Vocation" in From Max Weber, new edition, edited
by H. H. Gerth(1948) and C. W. Mills(1948) and Bryan S. Turner(1991). Routledge
Press, 1991.
中文參考書目
吳乃德(1996)，〈自由主義與族群認同：搜尋台灣民族主義的意識形態基礎〉，
刊載於《台灣政治學刊》第一卷，1996，七月。
吳乃德(2005)，〈麵包與愛情：初探台灣民眾民族認同的變動〉刊載於《台灣政
治學刊》第九卷第二期，2005，十二月。
李國雄(2010)，《比較政府與政治》，二版，三民出版，2010。
林進生、余元傑、謝政道(2010)，〈民進黨執政時期之台灣民族主義發展政策：
2000-2008〉，刊載於《嘉南學報》第三十六期，2010，十二月。
陳宜中(2001)，〈羅爾斯與政治哲學的實際任務〉，刊載於《政治科學論叢》第
十四期。
陳宜中(2013)，〈公民儒教的進路〉，收錄於《中國關鍵七問：憂思者的訪談》，
聯經文庫出版，2013，177-212。
高明士(主編)、洪麗完、張永楨、李力庸、王昭文(2009)，《台灣史》。二版，五
南出版，2009。
王甫昌(2003)，《當代台灣社會的族群想像》。群學出版，2003。
許漢(2001)，〈容忍之難與可能的解決之道〉，刊載於《政治與社會哲學評論》
第十三卷第三期，2001，九月。
海伍德(1992)(Andrew Heywood)，《政治的意識形態》，陳思賢譯。五南出版。
1992。
謝政諭(2005)，〈台灣與中國民族主義的分與合〉，刊載於《國立國父紀念館館
刊》，第十六期，2005，十一月。