[①] 党的十七大报告不仅提出要在国际社会中与世界各国在“文化上相互借鉴、求同存异,尊重世界多样性”,而且要在国内社会中“既尊重差异、包容多样,又有力抵制各种错误和腐朽思想的影响”。参见胡锦涛:《高举中国特色社会主义伟大旗帜,为夺取全面建设小康社会新胜利而奋斗——在中国共产党第十七次全国代表大会上的报告”》,《求是》,2007年第21期。[②] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971, .[③] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice,p. 387。对这一点我们可以用这样一个例子来说明:先秦儒家在论证道德教育的重要性的时候,既有性善论的论证(孟子),也有性恶论的论证(荀子)。[④] John Rawls, “The Domain of the Political and Overlapping Consensus”, in John Rawls, Collected Papers, edited by Samuel Freeman, Cambridge, Mass., London, England: Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 473.[⑤] John Rawls, Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 36. 参见约翰·罗尔斯:《政治自由主义》,万俊人译,南京:译林出版社,2000年,第37页。中译本把“reasonable”译成“理性的”,而把“rational”译成“合性的”,但笔者认为罗尔斯对“reasonable”的理解类似于中文的“合乎情理”,故主张译成“合理的”,而“rational”一词则常常用在“theory of rational choice”(理性选择理论)之类的词组中,故主张译为“理性的”。[⑥]John Rawls: “Reply to Habermas”, in John Rawls: Political Liberalism, pp. 388-389.[⑦]Jürgen Habermas, Vorstudien und Ergaenzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1995,. “合理共识”在这里的德文原词是“vernuenftige Konsensus”,其中的形容词“vernuenftige”与罗尔斯著作德译本中对应于“reasonable”的那个词是同一个词,见John Rawls, Die Idee des politischen Liberalismus: Aufsaetze 1978-1989, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1992, 第98页。在该页上,英文的“the reasonable”和“the rational”(见John Rawls, Political Liberalism, ),分别被译为“das Vernuenftige”和“das Rationale”。[⑧]尤根·哈贝马斯:《在事实与规范之间—关于民主和民主法治国的商谈理论》,童世骏译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2003年,第132页。[⑨]John Rawls: Political Liberalism, p. 58 .[⑩]哈罗德·格里门:“合理的退让和认知的退让”, G. 希尔贝克、童世骏编:《跨越边界的哲学—挪威哲学文集》,童世骏等译,杭州:浙江人民出版社,1999年,第367页。[11]哈罗德·格里门:“合理的退让和认知的退让”,《跨越边界的哲学—挪威哲学文集》,第368页。[12]哈罗德·格里门:“合理的退让和认知的退让”,《跨越边界的哲学—挪威哲学文集》,第385页,注3。[13]哈罗德·格里门:“合理的退让和认知的退让”,《跨越边界的哲学—挪威哲学文集》,第135页。[14]哈罗德·格里门:“合理的退让和认知的退让”,《跨越边界的哲学—挪威哲学文集》,第373页;参见John Rawls, “The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus”, John Rawls, Collected Papers, edited by Samuel Freeman, Cambridge, Mass., London, England: Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 434。[15]John Rawls: Political Liberalism, p. 49.[16] John Rawls: Political Liberalism, p. 59.[17]梁漱溟:《中国文化要义》,《梁漱溟全集》第3卷,济南:山东人民出版社,1990年,第123页。[18] Charles Taylor, “Conditions of an Unforced Consensus on Human Rights”, East Asian Challenge for Human Rights, edited by Joanne R. Bauer and Daniel A. Bell, London: Cambridge University Press,1999, p. 124.[19] Charles Taylor: “Conditions of an Unforced Consensus on Human Rights”, East Asian Challenge for Human Rights,p. 125.[20] Jürgen Habermas, “Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason”, The Journal of Philosophy, Volume XGII, No. 3, March 1995, p. 115.[21] Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2, translated by Thomas McCarthy, Boston: Beacon Press, 1987, p. 17。罗尔斯在《正义论》、尤其是《政治自由主义》中讨论的规范,主要处于“原则”层面。[22] Jürgen Habermas, “Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason”, The Journal of Philosophy, Volume XGII, No. 3, March 1995, p. 122.[23] John Rawls: “Reply to Habermas”, in John Rawls: Political Liberalism, pp. 386-387。[24] John Rawls: “Reply to Habermas”, in John Rawls: Political Liberalism,p. 385.[25] John Rawls: Political Liberalism, pp. 3-4.[26]转引自尤根·哈贝马斯:《在事实与规范之间》,第78页。[27] Jürgen Habermas, “Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason”, The Journal of Philosophy, Volume XGII, No. 3, March 1995, p. 122. 亦见尤根·哈贝马斯:《在事实与规范之间》,第79页。[28]如果说哈贝马斯完全忽视这点,可能有失公允,因为他之所以强调他所理解的“政治文化”(一个群体通过共同的政治过程而形成的文化,而不仅仅是与政治过程相关的文化),就是为了替普遍主义政治找到一个特殊主义基础,详见童世骏:“政治文化和现代社会的集体认同”, 复旦大学当代国外马克思主义研究中心编《当代国外马克思主义评论》第1辑,复旦大学出版社,2000年。此外,在近年来有关宗教的讨论中,哈贝马斯认为在不同的宗教-世界观之间,存在着一些有关人类的自我理解的最低量共识,而这种伦理共识支持了用商谈论的道德理论所理解的道德,详见童世骏:“‘后世俗社会’的批判理论—哈贝马斯与宗教”,《社会科学》2008年第1期。[29] John Rawls: Political Liberalism, p. 176.[30] Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: the Making of the Modernity Identity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1989, p. 515.[31] Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: the Making of the Modernity Identity,p. 515.[32] Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: the Making of the Modernity Identity,p. 516.[33] Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: the Making of the Modernity Identity,p. 521.[34] Charles Taylor, “Conditions of an Unforced Consensus on Human Rights”, East Asian Challenge for Human Rights, p. 137.[35] Charles Taylor, “Conditions of an Unforced Consensus on Human Rights”, East Asian Challenge for Human Rights,p. 138.[36] Charles Taylor, “Conditions of an Unforced Consensus on Human Rights”, East Asian Challenge for Human Rights,p. 138.[37]Charles Taylor, “Conditions of an Unforced Consensus on Human Rights”, East Asian Challenge for Human Rights,p. 138.[38] 参见李泽厚:《历史本体论/已卯五说》,第71页。[39] 《马克思恩格斯选集》第1卷,人民出版社,1995年,第60页。[40] 《马克思恩格斯选集》第1卷,第60页。[41] 《马克思恩格斯选集》第1卷,第585页。