Interests Violating Justice Lose Their Values——Rawls'Three Propositions on the Relationship between the Right and the Good
In the relationship between the right and the good,Rawls proposed three closely related propositions:priority proposition,congruence proposition,and complementarity proposition.Rawls'theory of justice mainly criticizes classical utilitarianism.The latter is a teleology that advocates the right as maximizing the good.The former is a deontology that advocates the priority of the right over the good,abbreviated as the priority proposition.According to the priority proposition,the right is not aimed at pursuing the greatest good.The greatest good is only an accidental result of human activities,not a reasonable goal of institutions and laws regulated by the principles of justice.The interests,includ-ing wealth,opportunity,power,status,and honor,obtained requiring the violation of justice by indi-viduals or groups,have no value.Rawls also advocates for the congruence between the right and the good,abbreviated as the congruence proposition.According to the proposition of congruence,the right and the good are compatible,while justice as fairness and goodness as rationality are congruent.Rawls also states that justice and goodness are complementary,abbreviated as the complementarity proposi-tion.Rawls interprets the principle of difference from the perspective of complementarity,advocating that the good that conforms to the right is more beneficial.The priority proposition is Rawls'overcom-ing classical utility theory,the congruence proposition is Rawls'overcoming Kant's moral philosophy,and the complementarity proposition provides evidence for the consistency between fairness and effi-ciency,surpassing Berlin's pluralism of values.The academic community generally values priority propositions while neglecting the other two propositions,leading to a misunderstanding of Rawls'theo-ry of the relationship between the right and the good.
NETL
NSTL
万方数据
