道德治理的三重向度——斯密视角及其当下启示

道德治理概念的提出,既是直面当前道德问题的一种理论自觉,也成为改善当下社会道德状况、提升道德水平的现实课题。而亚当·斯密对导致道德情操败坏的原因的分析,以及对惩罚与正义、欲望与良知、报偿与信仰的理论叙述,对当下社会认识各种败德现象的成因以及就解决各种道德问题所能谋求的治理之道,提供了可资借鉴的理论资源和实践参照。     

Self-interest and the theory of action

The concept of self-interest remains underdeveloped in sociology although central to economics. Recent methodological and social trends render sociological indifference to the concept untenable. The term has enjoyed historical predominance in the West since the sixteenth century. While it is seen in modern economics as a singular motivating force, Adam Smith regarded self-interest in economic action as necessarily moderated by sympathy. In addition to its problematic economic conceptualization self-interest has an experiential basis in unequal power relations. An alternative to the concept of self-interest is presented by Amartya Sen in his account of commitment; its inconsistencies, however, render Sen's statement unsatisfactory. Differences between present and future interests indicate that the distinction between self-interested and other-interested action is not sustainable.     

Desperately seeking social approval: Adam Smith, Thorstein Veblen and the moral limits of capitalist culture

Adam Smith and Thorstein Veblen shared much in matters of economic ontology. Both dismissed the very notion of an autonomous economic self and instead investigated the processes through which self and other are mutually constituted under changing cultural traditions of individual aspiration. Their strikingly similar critiques of status-oriented consumption and concern for the moral basis of the market economy are established in this manner. However, the political implications of their analyses point in different directions, with Veblen being the more radical. The Smithian individual can always use spectatorial insights to assert through genuinely praiseworthy behaviour personal moral distance from social norms of status-oriented consumption. The Veblenian individual, by contrast, has no such capacity for elevating abstract moral principles above socially-situated conduct, as mind and environment co-evolve in line with changing material circumstances of life. For Veblen, the rise of status-oriented consumption itself acted as a form of moral self-education that more deeply entrenched the social norms of ownership out of which it arose, thus the impossibility of an autonomous economic self was matched by the impossibility of an autonomous moral self. To his way of thinking, moral degradation in conspicuous consumption was irredeemably inscribed into the whole cultural structure of capitalism.     

论"经济人"与"道德人"的和谐及其现实影响——从亚当·斯密说起

亚当·斯密的《国富论》和《道德情操论》引申出了“经济人”与“道德人”两个概念,“经济人”与“道德人”反映了人的不同方面的需求,两者并不是统一的,更不是和谐的,而是对立的和谐。“经济人”是利己主义,“道德人”是利他主义,而我们强调两者的结合是建立在两者的冲突的基础上,“经济人”与“道德人”的和谐依赖于一种“看不见的手”的力量。这种和谐思想对市场经济建设而言具有重要意义,首先是需要不断强调人作为“道德人”的一面,否则市场经济体系将无法建立,同时要促进两者之间的结合,达到利己与利他之间的和谐,进而树立正确的义利观。     

同情、美德与秩序——亚当·斯密同情概念析论

在所谓"斯密问题"的理论定势中,同情往往被读解成一种行为动机,斯密却赋予同情概念以颇为特殊的含义.公正旁观者的同情作为一种普遍性的道德评价尺度,不仅成为道德赞许或责难的基础,也诠释了美德的本质及其特征.而其所内涵的对合宜性的道德诉求,更体现了对保持社会秩序与和谐的崇高冲动,这对当下社会和谐与市场社会的道德需求而言,仍具有重要的启示性意义.     

论亚当·斯密的伦理思想特征

亚当.斯密的伦理思想独辟蹊径,将理性伦理与经验伦理结合,使情感伦理学完善并成一体系,结合经济领域,以合宜为标尺,寻找道德行为与经济利益的和谐。     

"斯密难题"与市场运作中的败德行为分析

人的行为的出发点是利己的还是利他的,市场经济的确立使这一斯密难题在我国显性化.市场运作中的败德行为,是由于当今市场运作中的败德成本远远低于败德效益,其内化的收益和外溢的成本,刺激了败德行为的产生.针对败德行为,应把部分道德规范上升为法律规范,转变道德行为的"亏本"现象,并分清道德建设的层次性.     

对亚当·斯密价值论的理性分析

亚当·斯密是英国工场手工业时期的资产阶级古典政治经济学的集大成者,他在前人研究的基础上,成功地将英国资产阶级政治经济学推向了一个新的阶段,尤其是他的价值理论,在今天看来,都还有些合理的成份。而马克思劳动价值理论正是他对亚当·斯密价值论研究基础上创新而发展起来的科学理论。本文将阐述亚当·斯密价值论的合理内核和缺陷。     

亚当·斯密国际贸易理论的再思考

长期以来,人们对斯密的国际贸易理论存在着误解,认为它是静态理论,不符合现实情况。事实上,斯密从国民经济发展的角度探讨国际贸易及其与经济发展的互动关系,因而具有动态分析的特点。他在其著作《国富论》中表达了比较优势的基本思想,强调“后来获得的”要素及运输成本对一国优势地位和对外贸易的影响,认为不发达的农业国可通过学习和采用先进的生产技术获得优势,主张按具体情况对不同产品实行关税政策和渐进式的自由贸易政策。     

亚当.斯密和文明社会的四个隐喻

亚当.斯密在西方政治哲学史上居于什么位置,这是一个尚未得到充分讨论的问题。借助“公正的旁观者”、“经济-理性人”、“看不见的手”、“守夜人”等经典隐喻,亚当.斯密提出了一个有关未来文明社会的乌托邦。这些隐喻影响深远,黑格尔的“理性的诡计”、马克思的“自由人的联合体”、德沃金的“赫拉克勒斯”、罗蒂的“自由反讽人”以及诺齐克的“最小国家”等观念都可以在那里找到思想源头。不同于克罗波西、罗尔斯等人的消极评价,斯密应当在政治哲学史上占据某个核心位置。就“斯密的启蒙困境”而言,斯密从哲学伦理学向政治经济学转向,既符合其思想发展的历程,也符合其思想发展的逻辑。尽管他后期对《道德情操论》多有修订,但尚不足构成推翻其基本主张和从政治经济学向哲学伦理学倒转的条件。