The Stability of a Pluralist Society: On Public Reason, Deliberative Democracy, and Civic Virtues

本文的目的在於闡明多元社會的穩定性問題，並為之提供適當的解答。在當代自由民主社會存在多元的全面性學說之事實下，公民經常對各種社會制度和公共政策有著分歧的意見。於是，我們所面臨的穩定性問題是：如何促使抱持不同道德觀、價值觀和正義觀的公民，自願接受並遵守各種制度和政策的規範？本文欲探討的穩定性並非奠基在「暫訂協議」之上，而是一種「出於正當理由的穩定」。要確保這樣的穩定性，則適當的解答必須正視引發政治歧見的相關原因，並提供用以解決爭議或做決策的機制。 本文首先探討羅爾斯在《正義論》和《政治自由主義》中的三個穩定性論證，筆者將指出，這類從社會正義原則層次所提供的解答，無法成功地回答穩定性問題。而後，筆者將提出一個穩定性架構，其包含三個基本要素。第一個要素是羅爾斯的公共理性寬廣觀點，其可用以指導公民對各種基本政治問題的思考與推理。其次是古德曼和湯普森的審議民主觀。公共審議所發揮的功能可以擴展公民對相關資訊和觀點的瞭解、將個人的偏好從自利轉向公共利益的考量，並可促進良好的集體決策。經審議過後所進行的投票則可賦予最終的結果合法性，其使得人們更願意支持並遵守政策決議的結果。最後一個要素是審議公民的教育。唯有培養出具備審議相關能力和德行的公民，我們才可能真正實現公共理性和審議民主的理想。筆者將指出，這個穩定性架構是理論上可欲且實作上可行的，因此，它能夠作為多元社會穩定性問題的適當解答。The purpose of this dissertation is to formulate and present a proper solution to the problem of the stability of a pluralist society. Given the fact of the plurality of reasonable comprehensive doctrines in a liberal democratic society, citizens frequently disagree about various social institutions and public policies. The problem of stability we are faced with, then, is how citizens can be motivated so that they will accept and comply with these institutions and policies voluntarily, even if they affirm different conceptions of morality, good, and justice. The stability with which this dissertation is concerned is not based on a modus vivendi, but “stability for the right reasons”. In order to secure this kind of stability, the proper solution must respond appropriately to various sources of political disagreement and provide mechanisms for settling disputes or making policy decisions. In this dissertation, I will begin by examining three arguments of stability proposed by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism. Then I will explain why Rawls’s solutions, which are located at the level of principles of social justice, cannot resolve the problem of stability successfully. Next, I will propose a framework of stability that includes three essential elements. The first element is Rawls’s wide view of public reason. His view can be used to guide citizens’ thinking and reasoning about fundamental political questions. The second element is the conception of deliberative democracy from Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson. Various effects of public deliberation can broaden the information and perspectives of citizens, transform individuals’ preferences from private interests to public interests, and promote good collective decisions. Voting that follows deliberation can confer legitimacy on the ultimate results such that people will be more willing to support or comply with the results of policy-making. The third element is the education of deliberative citizens. Only if we can cultivate citizens with certain capabilities and virtues relevant to deliberation can we realize the ideals of public reason and deliberative democracy. I will argue that this framework is both defensible in theory and feasible in practice; hence, it can provide a proper solution to the problem of the stability of a pluralist society