【黃玉順、方旭東】“生涯儒學”問難：何為正義？——關于儒家倫理學一包養網心得的富春山對話

Fang:Yes, “Greetings” need to be changed accordingly. For example, the former Empire era can be said to be Zhou Gong’s “made gifts”; in the imperial era, it is like in the Han Dynasty, Shu Suntong and other Confucians ordered new gifts; and then in the era of the collapse of the empire, they wanted to enter a new era and needed new carriage designs. You put forward an example, for example, Kang Yousheng, and he also tried to set up a new gift. Then, what I want to ask is that your comment on Rors’s legitimate argument is painfully irritated by netizens. Price. As you keep mentioning, we are a modern era; you also mentioned that Rors’ legitimate argument is in a certain meaning To put it in fact, it is a value of modernity, a reaction to modernity. So, if according to your later statement, since Rors’s justification is a construction of modernity, in Chinese language, it is about “博官网口” modern design, why did you criticize him for putting the cat on the service table, wiping it and asking: “If there is a belt, do you say he is not right? I don’t understand this very well, and I hope you can refill it again.

Huang:I mean, Rors’s legitimacy is only suitable for modern times, without universality or generality. This principle is very simple: the two legitimacy principles he calls are only suitable for modern society and cannot explain it If we regard these two legitimate principles as broad principles, we must make a judgment: all legitimate and justified in the past history of human history. But we cannot treat history as such. When human society was under such a career method, it must have a set of corresponding rules and regulations. The structure and merchandise system are set, and the structure of the gift has its own reasons. In this meaning, the “everything that exists is fair” that Hegel said has its own reasons. For example, in modern China, the royal system of Zhou Gong’s “made gifts and music” included the patriarchal feudal system of the same structure as “family-country” and the system of tomorrow’s eldest son inherited it. If there is a reason, it cannot be said that it is injustice. Later, the transformation of life methods and social transformation occurred. The system structure of the imperial era, including a highly centralized system, a special system of emperors and a “Qian Nun” system, also has its own reason for the preservation method of the Chinese Empire at that time, because if there was no such system, China has long been lost, and it is this system that guarantees the preservation of the Chinese group. But in this era tomorrow, after the modern transformation of life methods, that set of things will not be possible, so the imperial system was overturned. The two rational principles of Rors’ righteousness cannot explain these historical phenomena, so it is not a real generalized argument.

What I talk about “Chinese Righteousness” [3], or perhaps it is Confucian ethics, is a broad rightfulness. It is not just modern, but 官网彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩Of course, we are now facing modernity, so we cannot stay in this set of principles. Therefore, my article has a “Modern Political Philosophy of Confucianism in Life”, which talks about “National Political Confucianism”. In fact, based on this set of principles, we will further develop a set of modern system settings.

Huang:I did not discuss this question in that article, I will briefly say it here. Roles’s specific design, not to mention, has caused great disputes even in the Eastern academic world, and it has no general adaptability in this meaning. Of course, I agree with the value of some of its focus, so the article “Roles’s Moral Criticism” [4] I wrote was named from the beginning. I do not object to the basic values ​​he advocated, such as “unrestrained” and “equivalent”, and 大官网彩网 does not believe that these basic values ​​are not suitable for China. However, his speech on many specific issues has caused disputes, and the more detailed the discussion, the less difficult it is to cause disputes.

Fang:What you mean seems to be, do you not be able to accept the two legitimate principles of Roles’ right?

Huang:I mean: they can be received as modern values, but they cannot be received as broad “right principle”. Because of the principle of justice that I understand, I just explained that it must be able to explain the fairness, justice and suitability of all regulatory settings in ancient and modern times, both at home and abroad. For example, the card system settings of the Chinese royal era and the card system settings of the imperial era that I just mentioned are unsolvable.

Fang:I understand. But, since we are now in modernity, will this statement be more just for Rors? That is: if Rors’ original intention was only to provide a basic calculating setting for modern society, and what he touched was the modern calculating principle, then we would not be able to point out and criticize him, saying that he did not provide a universal and appropriate calculating principle and calculating setting that was suitable for ancient and modern times, and both in China and abroad. Because this was not his original intention, I think it is always inherent to criticizing him from this meaning. This is the first point.

The second point is also what I care more about. Of course, there are many disputes about Rors’s legitimacy, including his two basic principles, the curtain of inkling, and the most href=”https://sites.google.com/view/sugarda