和 我们这一判断 其背后的一般原则之间，and the general principles we would articulate来回对比的过程。to make sense of those judgments.我们并没有停在那里，因为我们的最开始的直觉判断And not just stopping there, because we might be wrong可能是错的。in our initial intuitions.我们并没有停在那里，而是 在某些时候Not stopping there but then sometimes revising our particular judgments根据我们得出的这些原则来 修正最初的判断。in the light of the principles once we work them out.有的时候我们修正原则， 有的时候我们修正So sometimes we revise the principles, sometimes we revise our judgments我们对这些 案例中的判断和直觉思维。and intuitions in the particular cases.用Rawls的话来说，这么做的意义在于，The general point is this, and here I quote Rawls.正义 并不能从 不证自明的的前提 中推导出来。A conception of justice can't be deduced from self evident premises.要证明它，需要多种因素 的相互支持Its justification is a matter of the mutual support of many considerations,将所有的考虑因素 都调配成 一个连贯一致的观点。of everything fitting together into one coherent view.之后，在《正义论》中，他写道And later in the theory of justice, he writes,道德哲学 是苏格拉底式的，moral philosophy is Socratic.我们可能需要 改变我们现有的判断，We may want to change our present considered judgments一旦我们发现了 它对应的原则，once their regulative principles are brought to light.如果Rawls 采纳了这种想法Well, if Rawls accepts that idea提出了“反思的平衡” 这个想法，and advances that notion of reflective equilibrium,那么，我们剩下的问题就是，the question we're left with is,他应用这种方式 来考虑正义问题，he applies that to questions of justice,而不是道德 或“善”的生活的问题。not to questions of morality and the good life.这就是他为什么And that's why he remains committed to the priority仍然认为， 正义高于“善” 的原因。of the right over the good.他认为“反思的平衡” 的这种方法He thinks the method of reflective equilibrium能够产生对 正义的共识can generate shared judgments about justice in the right但是他不认为，这种思考方式会产生but he doesn't think they can generate shared judgments对善的生活 的共识，about the good life, about what he calls他称之为 复杂的道德和宗教问题。comprehensive moral and religious question.他这么想的理由是，他认为And the reason he thinks that is that he says that在现代社会中，对什么是“善” 有着多种理解。in modern societies there is a fact or reasonable pluralism about the good.即使是 那些有道德感的人 经过相当严密的推理，Even conscientious people who reason well,也会发现，他们对很多问题的看法 存在分歧，will find that they disagree about questions比如说 对善的生活、道德和宗教问题 的看法of the good life, about morality and religion.Rawls 可能是对的。And Rawls is likely right about that.他不只是在说，在多元社会里 人们的想法会 存在分歧这一事实，He's not talking about the fact of disagreement in pluralist societies.他还认为，在看待什么 “善”的时候，He's also suggesting that there may be persisting以及 在道德和宗教问题上，这些分歧会持续下去。disagreements about the good life and about moral and religious questions.但是如果这种说法是真的，那么But if that's true, then据此，他是不是 就可以证明is he warranted in his further claim人们对“正义”的看法上，就不会出现同样的事情呢？that the same can't be said about justice?事实上，在一个多元社会中，我们不仅Isn't it also true, not only that we, as a matter of fact, disagree在对正义的理解上 存在分歧，about justice in pluralist societies,而这些分歧 至少有一些是合理的，是不是真的如此呢？but that at least some of those disagreements are reasonable disagreements?同理，In the same way,有些人支持 自由意志主义的 正义理论，some people favor a libertarian theory of justice,另外一些人支持 平等主义的正义理论。others are more egalitarian theory of justice and they argue.我们的社会中存在着多元主张，有些人喜欢市场 的自由放任主义，And there is pluralism in our society as between free market laissez faire,有些人喜欢自由意志主义，有些人喜欢平等主义。libertarian theories of justice and more egalitarian ones.我们进行 道德推理的方式Is there any difference in principle以及我们出现的分歧，在原则上有没有什么区别？between the kind of moral reasoning and the kind of disagreements that arise当我们 讨论正义，when we debate about justice讨论 言论自由的意义，and the meaning of free speech讨论 宗教自由的本质 的时候出现的这些分歧？and the nature of religious liberty?看看 刚才提交到Look at the debates we have over最高法院的这些争论。appointees to the Supreme Court.人们 在正义和权利问题上 分歧重重。These are all disagreements about justice and rights.在正义和权利的问题上，存在着的多元意见，Is there any difference between the fact of reasonable pluralism与 在道德和宗教的问题上 的多元意见，这两者有什么不同吗？in the case of justice and rights and in the case of morality and religion?原则上，我不认为它们之间会有什么不同。In principle I don't think that there is.在两种情况中，当我们不同意对方的意见时，我们所作的事情都是In both cases what we do when we disagree is我们之间 相互对话，我们整个学期 也是这样做的。we engage with our interlocutor, as we've been doing here for an entire semester.不同的案例引发了 不同意见，我们对之加以思考。We consider the arguments that are provoked by particular cases.我们试图找出 让我们这样做，而不那样做 其背后的理由。We try to develop the reasons that lead us to go one way rather than another.我们听取 其他人的理由。And then we listen to the reasons of other people.有些时候，我们被他人说服，修改了我们的意见。And sometimes we're persuaded to revise our view.有的时候，我们与之争辩，坚持和加强 我们原有观点。Other times we're challenged at least to shore up and strengthen our view.道德上的争论 也是以这种方式进行的，But this is how moral argument proceeds,讨论正义的问题，对我来说，with justice, and so it seems to me, also跟 讨论“善”的问题 是一样的。with questions of the good life.现在，我们还有一个担忧，Now, there remains a further worry这是一个 自由主义的忧虑，and it's a liberal worry,如果我们认为，我们在道德和宗教上的分歧what about if we are going to think of our disagreements about morality and religion同我们在正义问题上的分歧 是联系在一起的，as bound up with our disagreements about justice,我们怎样才能 在一个社会中how are we ever going to find our way to a society对 其他意见不一的公民 给予尊重呢？that accords respect to fellow citizens with whom we disagree?我认为，这就要看 应该给予其什么样的尊重，It depends I think on which conception of respect one accepts.在自由主义者的立场上，尊重其他公民的On the liberal conception, to respect our fellow citizens'道德和宗教信仰，可以说就是 装着没看到它们，moral and religious convictions, is, so to speak, to ignore them,为了政治上的目的，我们这么做。for political purposes.这是为了把 这些道德和宗教信念To rise above or to abstract from or to set aside超越、抽象 或搁置一边。those moral and religious convictions.这是为了不去 打扰他们，是为了 不诉诸于这些道德和宗教信念，To leave them undisturbed, to carry on our political debate我们也能进行 政治争论。without reference to them.但这不是唯一的方式，But that isn't the only way,甚至不是最合理的方式or perhaps even the most plausible way来达到 民主生活所依赖的of understanding the mutual respect那种 相互尊重。on which democratic life depends.要做到尊重 其他公民的道德和宗教信仰，There is a different conception of respect according to which we respect还有另外一种方法，our fellow citizens' moral and religious convictions,不是漠视他们，而是与之交流。not by ignoring, but by engaging them.对他们 予以关注。By attending to them.有的时候 还需要与之争论。Sometimes by challenging and contesting them.有的时候 则需要聆听和学习。Sometimes by listening and learning from them.这么做 并不保证Now, there's no guarantee that在任何情况下，道德上、宗教上的相互接触a politics of moral and religious attention and engagement最后都会 达成一致的看法，will lead in any given case to agreement.也不保证这样做之后，我们最后都能There is no guarantee it will lead even to appreciation欣赏 其他人的道德和宗教信仰。for the moral and religious convictions of others.毕竟，总是有可能发生It's always possible, after all,对一种宗教和道德观点 了解越多，that learning more about a religious or a moral doctrine我们就 越不喜欢它。will lead us to like it less.但是 （比起相互漠视来说） 这种商议、交流带来的尊重But the respect of deliberation and engagement在我看来，对一个多元社会来说，更为合适。seems to me a more adequate, more suitable ideal for a pluralist society.我们在道德和宗教意见上 发生的分歧，在一种程度上反映了And to the extent that our moral and religious disagreements reflect人类品质上 存在着一些根本的多元差异。some ultimate plurality of human goods.在我看来，道德上相互交流 会让我们A politics of moral engagement will better enable us, so it seems to me,去欣赏 不同人生 所展现出来的 不同的品质。to appreciate the distinctive goods our different lives expressed.13个星期之前，当我们第一次见面的时候，When we first came together some 13 weeks ago,我谈到了 学习政治哲学的 快乐之处，I spoke of the exhilaration of political philosophy以及它的风险。and also of its dangers.我谈到，哲学是怎样的About how philosophy works and has always worked通过颠覆了我们的即成观念，使得过去熟悉的事物 变得陌生，by estranging us from the familiar by unsettling our settled assumptions.我试着提醒你们，一旦熟悉的变得陌生，And I tried to warn you that once the familiar turns strange,一旦我们开始 反思我们的环境，once we begin to reflect on our circumstance,世界将不再一样。it's never quite the same again.我希望你们，至少已经体会到了 一点点的不安I hope you have by now experienced at least a little of this unease这种不安，会促发我们的批判性思考，以及 政治上的完善because this is the tension that animates critical reflection and political improvement乃至 我们的道德生活。and maybe even the moral life as well.在某种意义上说，我们的讨论 已经告一段落，And so our argument comes to an end, in a sense,但在另外一个意义上说，它还会继续进行下去。but in another sense goes on.从一开始，我们就问为什么Why, we asked at the outset,为什么我们要继续进行这些争论，即使它们引发的问题why did these arguments keep going even if they raise questions最终都不太可能 得到解决？that are impossible ever, finally, to resolve?理由是，我们一直都生活 在这些问题的回答中。The reason is that we live some answer to these questions all the time.在我们的公共生活中，在我们的私人生活中，In our public life, and in our personal lives,即使有时候这些问题无法回答，但我们还是无法 回避哲学。philosophy is inescapable even if it sometimes seems impossible.我们开始的时候，谈到了康德的一个观点，We began with the thought of Kant,即 怀疑是人类理性的 休憩之处。that skepticism is a resting place for human reason.怀疑 让理性能反省 其教条式的漫游旅程，Where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings,但 怀疑也并非是 永久的安身之处。but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement.康德写道，仅仅停留在 怀疑或自满，To allow ourselves simply to acquiescence in skepticism or in complacence, Kant wrote,绝不足以 克服理性之不安。can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason.这门课程的目的The aim of this course has been to awaken就是要 唤醒你们永不停歇的 理性思考