古德曼與湯普森之審議式民主理論研究

Abstract

本計畫擬研究美國政治哲學家古德曼與湯普森之審議式民主理論。由於當代社會 是一個價值多元的社會，人們抱持不同的道德觀、宗教觀與世界觀，因此在面對墮胎、 安樂死、同性戀婚姻是否應合法化？積極平權措施是否侵犯優勢族群的權益？拒絕給 予窮人優惠的醫療照顧是否有錯？言論自由是否應保障種族歧視語言、色情刊物？… 等問題時，往往會產生多元甚至衝突的意見。由於這些問題包含了道德、法律、社會、 國家安全等諸多面向的爭議，因此是難解的深層衝突。古德曼與湯普森主張，當公民 面對道德與政治上的深層衝突時，不應該以多數決來制訂決策，而應該基於相互性原 則、公開性原則與責任原則，彼此持續提出理由、相互溝通，以道德審議的模式來解 決爭議。由於古德曼與湯普森主張以羅爾斯的「反思均衡」作為審議式民主的方法論 基礎，再加上古德曼、湯普森與羅爾斯同樣注重「公共合理性」、「公開性」等概念， 因此，傅利曼與墨西度認為古德曼與湯普森的審議式民主論是羅爾斯公共理性論的延 續，而非取代。然而筆者認為這兩種理論在「是否允許審議的結果為暫定協議？」、「是 否允許根據多數決證成政治決策？」的問題上具有很大的差異，因此，在本計畫中， 筆者將釐清古德曼與湯普森的審議式民主論與羅爾斯公共理性論之間的關係。此外， 古德曼與湯普森的審議式民主論也引發諸多質疑，例如，審議式民主論是否為純粹的 程序理論？亦或在審議過程中必須尊重實質性正義原則？審議式民主能否與憲政主義 相符？審議的結果能否挑戰憲政基本價值？這些都是批評者質疑的焦點，亦為本計畫 所探討的重心。

This research project intends to explore Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson’s theory of deliberative democracy. As Gutmann and Thompson claimed, the most serious challenge of modern society is the problem of moral disagreement. Citizens disagree on some hard issues such as abortion, euthanasia, gay right, affirmative action because modern society is full of conflicts of diverse values. In face of these hard issues, Gutmann and Thompson argue that citizens should follow the principle of reciprocity, the principle of publicity, the principle of accountability, and continue to reason together to reach mutually acceptable decisions. This conception is called deliberative democracy. Gutmann and Thompson intend to replace the vote-centric theory of democracy with the talk-centric theory of democracy because the majority rule often sacrifices the minority group. Gutmann and Thompson further argue that the basic approach in the deliberative democracy is John Rawls’s idea of reflective equilibrium. In addition, like Ralws, Gutmann and Thompson emphasis the importance of the principle of publicity in the process of decision making. Based on these characters, Stephen Macedo claims that Gutmann and Thompson’s theory is the extension and reformulation of Rawls’s idea of public reason. Samuel Freeman also calls Gutmann and Thompson the Rawlsian deliberative theorists. I don’t totally agree these assertions. In this project, I will clarify the difference between them. Besides, some philosophers doubt whether Gutmann and Thompson’s theory of deliberative democracy could be consistent with constitutionalism? Is deliberation able to challenge the principles of justice? These are also the important topics I want to explore in this project.