本文選題：絕對(duì)主權(quán)　切入點(diǎn)：正當(dāng)性　出處：《華東師范大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：說(shuō)明人如何從自然狀態(tài)進(jìn)入人類(lèi)社會(huì),建立國(guó)家來(lái)確保人的生存與安全,是霍布斯的《利維坦》關(guān)注的重點(diǎn)所在。在《利維坦》一書(shū)中,霍布斯基于其機(jī)械唯物主義的立場(chǎng),對(duì)人性進(jìn)行分析,推理出了自然狀態(tài)、自然法、社會(huì)契約、主權(quán)者的權(quán)利與職責(zé)、公民的義務(wù)與自由,由此構(gòu)建出一個(gè)完整的理論體系,力圖為其絕對(duì)主權(quán)學(xué)說(shuō)提供一種理性辯護(hù)。 本文以霍布斯《利維坦》一書(shū)中關(guān)于“絕對(duì)主權(quán)”的論證過(guò)程為立足點(diǎn),通過(guò)勾勒古希臘至近代時(shí)期對(duì)正當(dāng)性問(wèn)題所作探討,從近代理性辯護(hù)的立場(chǎng)來(lái)審視霍布斯對(duì)“絕對(duì)主權(quán)”正當(dāng)性的論證。原因有二：首先,霍布斯作為西方學(xué)說(shuō)發(fā)展史中的重鎮(zhèn),將國(guó)家視作為出自人手的機(jī)器,主張從國(guó)家內(nèi)部探討政治正當(dāng)性問(wèn)題,對(duì)近代政治哲學(xué)產(chǎn)生了重大影響；其次,針對(duì)霍布斯為絕對(duì)主權(quán)所做論證是否足以說(shuō)明其絕對(duì)主權(quán)的正當(dāng)性這一問(wèn)題仍然是可懷疑的。 全文共分為三章： 本文第一章立足于《利維坦》一書(shū),通過(guò)對(duì)相關(guān)文本的分析,力圖清晰勾勒出霍布斯關(guān)于“絕對(duì)主權(quán)”的論證過(guò)程。 本文第二章簡(jiǎn)要勾勒自古希臘至近代期間西方政治正當(dāng)性問(wèn)題研究脈絡(luò)。本章旨在說(shuō)明對(duì)政治正當(dāng)性問(wèn)題的探討經(jīng)由自然正當(dāng)、自然法,直至近代已發(fā)展成為對(duì)國(guó)家政治統(tǒng)治的理性辯護(hù),正當(dāng)性成為了一個(gè)需要證成的概念。 本文第三章旨在反思霍布斯的絕對(duì)主權(quán)論證。本章分為兩部分：首先,從現(xiàn)代政治哲學(xué)發(fā)展的角度來(lái)看,霍布斯在《利維坦》中構(gòu)建了一個(gè)完整、系統(tǒng)的理論框架來(lái)論證其絕對(duì)主權(quán)。他在歷史上首次提出主權(quán)者來(lái)自于個(gè)人的同意和授權(quán),為主權(quán)在民(個(gè)人)的現(xiàn)代民主思想奠定了基礎(chǔ),為探尋政治正當(dāng)性提供了一種新思路。其次,霍布斯為絕對(duì)主權(quán)所做論證仍然是可懷疑的。其原因就在于霍布斯將人視作欲望與自我保存的主體,進(jìn)而推理出作為聯(lián)合意志代表的主權(quán)者必須是絕對(duì)的。其結(jié)果是對(duì)作為其來(lái)源的個(gè)人意志的強(qiáng)制,有可能帶來(lái)個(gè)人意志的屈從。個(gè)人在擺脫了自然的暴力恐怖狀態(tài)后,隨即被拋入了一個(gè)人為的暴力恐怖狀態(tài)。因此,在為絕對(duì)主權(quán)提供理性辯護(hù)的過(guò)程中,霍布斯難以自圓其說(shuō)。
[Abstract]:It is the focus of Hobbes' Leviathan to explain how people enter human society from their natural state to establish a state to ensure their survival and security. In Leviathan, Hobbes is based on his position of mechanical materialism. By analyzing human nature, we infer the state of nature, natural law, social contract, the rights and duties of the sovereign, the duties and freedoms of the citizen, and thus construct a complete theoretical system. Try to provide a rational justification for his doctrine of absolute sovereignty. Based on the demonstration process of absolute sovereignty in Hobbes' Leviathan, this paper discusses the legitimacy of ancient Greece to modern times. To examine Hobbes' justification of "absolute sovereignty" from the standpoint of modern rational defense. There are two reasons. First, Hobbes, as an important place in the history of the development of Western doctrine, regards the state as a machine of human hands. It is doubtful whether Hobbes' argument for absolute sovereignty is sufficient to explain the legitimacy of absolute sovereignty. The full text is divided into three chapters:. The first chapter of this paper is based on Leviathan, through the analysis of relevant texts, trying to clearly outline Hobbes' argumentation process of "absolute sovereignty". The second chapter briefly outlines the research context of political legitimacy in the West from ancient Greece to modern times. This chapter aims to explain the discussion of political legitimacy through natural legitimacy and natural law. Until modern times, it has developed into a rational defense of national political rule, and legitimacy has become a concept in need of proof. The third chapter aims to reflect on Hobbes' absolute sovereignty argument. This chapter is divided into two parts: first, from the perspective of the development of modern political philosophy, Hobbes constructs a whole in Leviathan. He proposed for the first time in history that the sovereign came from the consent and authorization of the individual, which laid the foundation for the modern democratic thought of sovereignty in the people. This provides a new way of thinking about political legitimacy. Secondly, Hobbes' argument for absolute sovereignty is still doubtful. The reason is that Hobbes sees man as the subject of desire and self-preservation. And then infer that the sovereign, as the representative of the United will, must be absolute. The result is the compulsion of the individual will as its source, which may lead to the submission of the individual will. The individual, after being freed from the natural state of violence and terror, It was then thrown into a state of man-made violence and terror, so Hobbes could hardly justify himself in providing a rational defence of absolute sovereignty.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D091

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 郭為桂;人民同意:現(xiàn)代政治正當(dāng)性的道德基石[J];湖北行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年03期

2 毛興貴;;政治合法性、政治正當(dāng)性與政治義務(wù)[J];馬克思主義與現(xiàn)實(shí);2010年04期

3 戴木才;政治的正當(dāng)性及其形態(tài)演化[J];中共中央黨校學(xué)報(bào);2004年03期

4 周濂;;合乎自然的秩序與合乎權(quán)利的秩序[J];哲學(xué)研究;2009年12期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 何海濤;霍布斯《利維坦》的主權(quán)思想研究[D];重慶大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：1686405