评论罗尔斯的《作为公正的正义》 / Critique of Justice as Fairness
评论：《作为公正的正义》
Critique of Justice as Fairness
作者：石涛
2014年04月
翻译：齐云青
约翰·罗尔斯的著作是20世纪最具影响力的伦理哲学著作之一。他最重要的著作《正义论》首次出版于1971年，并于1975年和1999年修订。罗尔斯在书中回答的问题是：“什么是社会中最公正分配的效益？”。他的回答提出了一个他称之为“作为公平的正义”的正义概念。
John Rawls’ work is among the most influential of 20th century moral philosophy. His most important work is “A Theory of Justice” first published in 1971 and later revised in 1975 and 1999. In this work, Rawls answers the question “what is the most just distribution of goods in a society?”. His answer proposes a notion of justice he calls “justice as fairness”.
罗尔斯的 “作为公平的正义“源于一个概念，即是假如人们不知道自己在社会的位置，任何人都会选择一个公平的效益分配。他不知道自己是穷还是富，愚蠢还是聪明，健康或生病，年轻或年老，男人或女人。从这个所谓的“无知之幕”角度来看，罗尔斯认为每个人都会理性地选择一个公平的方式来分配社会效益。
Rawls’ notion of justice as fairness is developed from the idea that anyone will choose a fair distribution of goods if he doesn’t know where he will end up in the society. He doesn’t know if he is rich or poor, stupid or intelligent, fit or ill, young or old, man or woman. From this position, called the “original position” Rawls believes that everyone will rationally choose a fair way to distribute the society’s goods.
引自罗尔斯：
From Rawls:
"no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.” -- Rawls, Theory of Justice, 1971
这个概念就如切蛋糕，切蛋糕的人不能同时选择他们想吃哪一块。
This is similar to the idea of fairness when cutting a cake. The person that cuts can’t also choose which piece they get.
罗尔斯认为任何一个站在“无知之幕”角度的人都会选择最大化最小值这种分配原则。他会选择对获利最少群体最为有利的分配方式。这是因为谁知道哪天他也会沦为底层。没人能确切知道他们最终的境遇。
Rawls’ argues that any person from the original position will choose what’s called the maximin distribution. Maximin is short form for maximized minimum. He will choose the distribution of goods that is best for the people that get the least. This is because who knows, he could end up there at the bottom. Nobody knows for sure where they’ll end up.
在切蛋糕这个例子当中，最大化最小值意味着切蛋糕的人会从蛋糕正中间切下去。这使得最小的那块蛋糕得到最大化。其他任何一种方法都会使最小那块少于一半。
In the context of splitting the cake, maximin means that the cutter will split the cake right down the middle. This maximizes the smallest piece of cake. Any other way and the smallest of the two pieces is less than half.
直观看去，将蛋糕一分为二的切法似乎是最公平的分配方式。无知之幕以及最大化最小值这两个概念似乎说得通。那问题到底在哪里呢？
Intuitively, half and half on the cake seems like the most fair and just distribution. The original position concept and maximin seem to work here. What's wrong with it?
“作为公平的正义“有什么问题？
What’s wrong with this notion of justice as fairness?
蛋糕是个颇为特殊的例子，因为每块蛋糕的味道都是一样的。人们不会对某块蛋糕产生偏好。当我们将罗尔斯的标准运用到更广阔的地方，我们需要从蛋糕升级到不同种类的效益。当我们开始思考如何分配两种或两种以上的效益，情况就开始变得复杂，因为人们喜欢不同的东西。
A cake is somewhat unique because it tastes the same throughout. People won't have preferences over one part of the cake over another. As we start to apply Rawls' notion of justice more broadly we need to move beyond the cake towards sets of goods. If we start to think about how to distribute two or more different goods it becomes more complicated because people like different things.
我们来看一个例子。
Let’s consider an example.
想象一对在离婚过程中的夫妻。他们结婚多年从来没有好好沟通，但他们却一起购买了大量的艺术作品，并享有一个既珍贵又多样的收藏系列。他们的收藏中有一半是19世纪的印象派画作，另一半是20世纪的抽象表现派。妻子喜爱抽象表现主义画作，对印象派作品没有感觉。相反，丈夫喜爱印象派画作，但对抽象表现主义的作品没有感觉。然而，他们都不知道对方的喜好。
Imagine a husband and wife in the midst of divorce. During their many years of marriage they never communicated well, but they did purchase a lot of art work and built an excellent and diverse collection. Half of their collection are 19th century impressionist paintings and the other half are 20th century abstract expressionist works. The wife loves the abstract expressionist paintings and has no feelings for the impressionist works. In contrast, the husband loves the impressionist paintings but has no feelings for the abstract expressionist works. However, neither really knows the other’s preferences.
从罗尔斯的“无知之幕”观点来看，他们会如何选择分配呢？
What distribution will they choose from Rawls’ original position?
最大化最小值原则是双方各得印象派和抽象表现派各一半。最后各人都会有一半他们不关心的画作，但至少他们可以得到一半他们真心喜爱的画作。
The maximin distribution is to put half of the impressionists and half of the abstract expressionists in each of the two sets. Half the paintings in each person's received set will be works they don't really care for, but at least half will be works they really love.
这里明显的问题是这个策略远远达不到最佳的分配效益。最佳的分配效益是丈夫得到所有的印象派画作，而妻子则得到所有抽象表现的画作。但实际上，各人只得到一半也同时得到很多他们不关心的画作。
The obvious problem here is that this is very far from the best possible distribution of goods. The best distribution would be the husband getting all the impressionists and the wife getting all the abstract expressionists. Instead, each is getting half of what they want and a bunch of paintings they don’t care for.
人们各有所好。在此出现的基本问题是罗尔斯的无知之幕概念模糊了人们对效益的个人偏好。这个概念使得所有效益趋同化，因为效益之最基本属性是人们对效益各有所好。
People have different preferences. The basic problem here is that Rawls' original position abstracts away individual preferences over goods. This effectively makes all goods the same, because the most fundamental property of goods is that people have preferences over them.
这该如何解决？显然，丈夫和妻子都需要与对方沟通和分享自己的喜好，或者如果他们真的拒绝交谈就需要某种形式的市场环境让他们进行交易 。但这一切都无法从罗尔斯的“无知之幕”中产生。这里需要某种例如市场的东西来更好地调适分配。
How could this be fixed? Well, both the husband and wife would need to communicate and share their preferences or if they really refuse to talk with one another there would have to be some form of marketplace through which they could trade. But all of this could not happen from Rawls’ original position. It needs something more to adjust the distribution, like a market.
人们对风险口味不一。罗尔斯理论的另一个问题是它假定每个人会选择最大化最小值分配标准。这个对人的假设是正确的吗？有人喜欢赌博，有人则不。有人喜欢在创业阶段的小公司工作，而有人则喜欢在政府部门工作。一切经验之谈证明人们对风险有不同的看法。为什么这个在无知之幕里没有？为什么没有提到最小化最大值标准？
People have different taste for risk. Another problem with Rawls' theory is the assumption that everyone will choose a maximin distribution. Is this a correct assumption about people? Some people like to gamble and some don't. Some people like to work at a small start-up while others like to work at a big government bureau. All empirical evidence suggests that people have different taste for risk. Why does this disappear in the original position? Why is minimax the default strategy there?
让我们再回到这个例子上。
Let us return to the example.
假设妻子是一个真正的冒险者，而丈夫相对愿意避免风险。他们真的都希望各占一半的分配吗？也许妻子会说，我要最大化我得到那些罗斯科的和波洛克画作的机会。那么所有的印象派会被分配到一起，而全部的抽象表现派画作也会分到一起。罗尔斯假设这个情况永远不会发生。 每个人都会选择最小化最大值的分配。然而，在现实中有些人可能更喜欢孤注一掷的賭博。人们对风险口味不一。
Assume that the wife is a real risk-taker while the husband is rather risk-averse. Would they really both want the same distribution of half and half in each lot? Maybe the wife would say, I want to maximize my chance at all those Rothko’s and Pollock’s. Then all the impressionists would be in one lot and all the abstract expressionists in another. Rawls’ assumes that this could never happen. Everyone will choose the minimax distribution. However, in reality some people might prefer to gamble for all or nothing. People have different taste for risk.
最佳分配是丈夫得到所有他喜欢的画作，妻子也得到所有她喜欢的。若是按照人们的喜好分配效益，所有人都会更满意。 “无知之幕”的问题在于它太抽离人们的核心价值，即他们的喜好和他们对风险的偏好。从无知之幕出发的最大化最小值分配原则，名以上也许是是符合“公正”的某些定义的，但结果却使满意程度较之最佳分配方案要少。
The best distribution is that the husband gets all the paintings he likes and the wife gets all the paintings she likes. Goods are not like one big homogenous cake. When goods are distributed according to preferences everyone is happier. The problem with the original position is that it abstracts away what is fundamental to people; their preferences and their taste for risk. The distribution from an original position with maximin may be nominally “fair” under some definition of that word, but it results in much less happiness than the best possible distribution.
请扫石涛讲故事的公众平台二维码阅读更多石涛的文章
Critique of Justice as Fairness
作者：石涛
2014年04月
翻译：齐云青
 |
约翰·罗尔斯的著作是20世纪最具影响力的伦理哲学著作之一。他最重要的著作《正义论》首次出版于1971年，并于1975年和1999年修订。罗尔斯在书中回答的问题是：“什么是社会中最公正分配的效益？”。他的回答提出了一个他称之为“作为公平的正义”的正义概念。
John Rawls’ work is among the most influential of 20th century moral philosophy. His most important work is “A Theory of Justice” first published in 1971 and later revised in 1975 and 1999. In this work, Rawls answers the question “what is the most just distribution of goods in a society?”. His answer proposes a notion of justice he calls “justice as fairness”.
 |
罗尔斯的 “作为公平的正义“源于一个概念，即是假如人们不知道自己在社会的位置，任何人都会选择一个公平的效益分配。他不知道自己是穷还是富，愚蠢还是聪明，健康或生病，年轻或年老，男人或女人。从这个所谓的“无知之幕”角度来看，罗尔斯认为每个人都会理性地选择一个公平的方式来分配社会效益。
Rawls’ notion of justice as fairness is developed from the idea that anyone will choose a fair distribution of goods if he doesn’t know where he will end up in the society. He doesn’t know if he is rich or poor, stupid or intelligent, fit or ill, young or old, man or woman. From this position, called the “original position” Rawls believes that everyone will rationally choose a fair way to distribute the society’s goods.
引自罗尔斯：
From Rawls:
"no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.” -- Rawls, Theory of Justice, 1971
 |
这个概念就如切蛋糕，切蛋糕的人不能同时选择他们想吃哪一块。
This is similar to the idea of fairness when cutting a cake. The person that cuts can’t also choose which piece they get.
罗尔斯认为任何一个站在“无知之幕”角度的人都会选择最大化最小值这种分配原则。他会选择对获利最少群体最为有利的分配方式。这是因为谁知道哪天他也会沦为底层。没人能确切知道他们最终的境遇。
Rawls’ argues that any person from the original position will choose what’s called the maximin distribution. Maximin is short form for maximized minimum. He will choose the distribution of goods that is best for the people that get the least. This is because who knows, he could end up there at the bottom. Nobody knows for sure where they’ll end up.
在切蛋糕这个例子当中，最大化最小值意味着切蛋糕的人会从蛋糕正中间切下去。这使得最小的那块蛋糕得到最大化。其他任何一种方法都会使最小那块少于一半。
In the context of splitting the cake, maximin means that the cutter will split the cake right down the middle. This maximizes the smallest piece of cake. Any other way and the smallest of the two pieces is less than half.
直观看去，将蛋糕一分为二的切法似乎是最公平的分配方式。无知之幕以及最大化最小值这两个概念似乎说得通。那问题到底在哪里呢？
Intuitively, half and half on the cake seems like the most fair and just distribution. The original position concept and maximin seem to work here. What's wrong with it?
“作为公平的正义“有什么问题？
What’s wrong with this notion of justice as fairness?
蛋糕是个颇为特殊的例子，因为每块蛋糕的味道都是一样的。人们不会对某块蛋糕产生偏好。当我们将罗尔斯的标准运用到更广阔的地方，我们需要从蛋糕升级到不同种类的效益。当我们开始思考如何分配两种或两种以上的效益，情况就开始变得复杂，因为人们喜欢不同的东西。
A cake is somewhat unique because it tastes the same throughout. People won't have preferences over one part of the cake over another. As we start to apply Rawls' notion of justice more broadly we need to move beyond the cake towards sets of goods. If we start to think about how to distribute two or more different goods it becomes more complicated because people like different things.
我们来看一个例子。
Let’s consider an example.
想象一对在离婚过程中的夫妻。他们结婚多年从来没有好好沟通，但他们却一起购买了大量的艺术作品，并享有一个既珍贵又多样的收藏系列。他们的收藏中有一半是19世纪的印象派画作，另一半是20世纪的抽象表现派。妻子喜爱抽象表现主义画作，对印象派作品没有感觉。相反，丈夫喜爱印象派画作，但对抽象表现主义的作品没有感觉。然而，他们都不知道对方的喜好。
Imagine a husband and wife in the midst of divorce. During their many years of marriage they never communicated well, but they did purchase a lot of art work and built an excellent and diverse collection. Half of their collection are 19th century impressionist paintings and the other half are 20th century abstract expressionist works. The wife loves the abstract expressionist paintings and has no feelings for the impressionist works. In contrast, the husband loves the impressionist paintings but has no feelings for the abstract expressionist works. However, neither really knows the other’s preferences.
从罗尔斯的“无知之幕”观点来看，他们会如何选择分配呢？
What distribution will they choose from Rawls’ original position?
最大化最小值原则是双方各得印象派和抽象表现派各一半。最后各人都会有一半他们不关心的画作，但至少他们可以得到一半他们真心喜爱的画作。
The maximin distribution is to put half of the impressionists and half of the abstract expressionists in each of the two sets. Half the paintings in each person's received set will be works they don't really care for, but at least half will be works they really love.
 |
这里明显的问题是这个策略远远达不到最佳的分配效益。最佳的分配效益是丈夫得到所有的印象派画作，而妻子则得到所有抽象表现的画作。但实际上，各人只得到一半也同时得到很多他们不关心的画作。
The obvious problem here is that this is very far from the best possible distribution of goods. The best distribution would be the husband getting all the impressionists and the wife getting all the abstract expressionists. Instead, each is getting half of what they want and a bunch of paintings they don’t care for.
人们各有所好。在此出现的基本问题是罗尔斯的无知之幕概念模糊了人们对效益的个人偏好。这个概念使得所有效益趋同化，因为效益之最基本属性是人们对效益各有所好。
People have different preferences. The basic problem here is that Rawls' original position abstracts away individual preferences over goods. This effectively makes all goods the same, because the most fundamental property of goods is that people have preferences over them.
这该如何解决？显然，丈夫和妻子都需要与对方沟通和分享自己的喜好，或者如果他们真的拒绝交谈就需要某种形式的市场环境让他们进行交易 。但这一切都无法从罗尔斯的“无知之幕”中产生。这里需要某种例如市场的东西来更好地调适分配。
How could this be fixed? Well, both the husband and wife would need to communicate and share their preferences or if they really refuse to talk with one another there would have to be some form of marketplace through which they could trade. But all of this could not happen from Rawls’ original position. It needs something more to adjust the distribution, like a market.
人们对风险口味不一。罗尔斯理论的另一个问题是它假定每个人会选择最大化最小值分配标准。这个对人的假设是正确的吗？有人喜欢赌博，有人则不。有人喜欢在创业阶段的小公司工作，而有人则喜欢在政府部门工作。一切经验之谈证明人们对风险有不同的看法。为什么这个在无知之幕里没有？为什么没有提到最小化最大值标准？
People have different taste for risk. Another problem with Rawls' theory is the assumption that everyone will choose a maximin distribution. Is this a correct assumption about people? Some people like to gamble and some don't. Some people like to work at a small start-up while others like to work at a big government bureau. All empirical evidence suggests that people have different taste for risk. Why does this disappear in the original position? Why is minimax the default strategy there?
让我们再回到这个例子上。
Let us return to the example.
假设妻子是一个真正的冒险者，而丈夫相对愿意避免风险。他们真的都希望各占一半的分配吗？也许妻子会说，我要最大化我得到那些罗斯科的和波洛克画作的机会。那么所有的印象派会被分配到一起，而全部的抽象表现派画作也会分到一起。罗尔斯假设这个情况永远不会发生。 每个人都会选择最小化最大值的分配。然而，在现实中有些人可能更喜欢孤注一掷的賭博。人们对风险口味不一。
Assume that the wife is a real risk-taker while the husband is rather risk-averse. Would they really both want the same distribution of half and half in each lot? Maybe the wife would say, I want to maximize my chance at all those Rothko’s and Pollock’s. Then all the impressionists would be in one lot and all the abstract expressionists in another. Rawls’ assumes that this could never happen. Everyone will choose the minimax distribution. However, in reality some people might prefer to gamble for all or nothing. People have different taste for risk.
最佳分配是丈夫得到所有他喜欢的画作，妻子也得到所有她喜欢的。若是按照人们的喜好分配效益，所有人都会更满意。 “无知之幕”的问题在于它太抽离人们的核心价值，即他们的喜好和他们对风险的偏好。从无知之幕出发的最大化最小值分配原则，名以上也许是是符合“公正”的某些定义的，但结果却使满意程度较之最佳分配方案要少。
The best distribution is that the husband gets all the paintings he likes and the wife gets all the paintings she likes. Goods are not like one big homogenous cake. When goods are distributed according to preferences everyone is happier. The problem with the original position is that it abstracts away what is fundamental to people; their preferences and their taste for risk. The distribution from an original position with maximin may be nominally “fair” under some definition of that word, but it results in much less happiness than the best possible distribution.
请扫石涛讲故事的公众平台二维码阅读更多石涛的文章
 |
