具体描述
We think of modern liberalism as the novel product of a world reinvented on a secular basis after 1945. In The Theology of Liberalism, one of the country's most important political theorists argues that we could hardly be more wrong. Eric Nelson contends that the tradition of liberal political philosophy founded by John Rawls is, however unwittingly, the product of ancient theological debates about justice and evil. Once we understand this, he suggests, we can recognize the deep incoherence of various forms of liberal political philosophy that have emerged in Rawls's wake.
Nelson starts by noting that today's liberal political philosophers treat the unequal distribution of social and natural advantages as morally arbitrary. This arbitrariness, they claim, diminishes our moral responsibility for our actions. Some even argue that we are not morally responsible when our own choices and efforts produce inequalities. In defending such views, Nelson writes, modern liberals have implicitly taken up positions in an age-old debate about whether the nature of the created world is consistent with the justice of God. Strikingly, their commitments diverge sharply from those of their proto-liberal predecessors, who rejected the notion of moral arbitrariness in favor of what was called Pelagianism--the view that beings created and judged by a just God must be capable of freedom and merit. Nelson reconstructs this earlier "liberal" position and shows that Rawls's philosophy derived from his self-conscious repudiation of Pelagianism. In closing, Nelson sketches a way out of the argumentative maze for liberals who wish to emerge with commitments to freedom and equality intact.
用户评价
##对罗尔斯观点的神学解读，并指出了罗尔斯同传统自由主义思想之间的内在矛盾，自由主义思想肯定人的尊严、自主和能动，在这个意义上，如果完全反对应得，认为我们所取得的一切功绩都是建立在偶然的基础上，因此我们不应受到任何优待，无疑是秉持了一种决定论的观点，也是同自由主义的理论前提相矛盾的。
评分##不怎么认同Nelson的论证，但是他让我弄清楚了罗尔斯对我最根本的吸引力在哪里。
评分##不怎么认同Nelson的论证，但是他让我弄清楚了罗尔斯对我最根本的吸引力在哪里。
评分##不怎么认同Nelson的论证，但是他让我弄清楚了罗尔斯对我最根本的吸引力在哪里。
评分##对罗尔斯观点的神学解读，并指出了罗尔斯同传统自由主义思想之间的内在矛盾，自由主义思想肯定人的尊严、自主和能动，在这个意义上，如果完全反对应得，认为我们所取得的一切功绩都是建立在偶然的基础上，因此我们不应受到任何优待，无疑是秉持了一种决定论的观点，也是同自由主义的理论前提相矛盾的。
评分打通思想史（神正论）和当代政治理论任督二脉的杰作。从罗尔斯本科论文入手，析清罗尔斯正义论背后的“反伯拉纠主义”（anti-Palegianism）底色，进而呈现出当代自由主义在分配正义方面的根本困境。【挑剔如Samuel Moyn也不得不承认，“Nelson在其所涉足的每一个领域都有新东西可讲”，能翻译这么一位大神的著作也真是自己的一份荣幸了】
评分##既能写早期近代思想史（联系古希腊源流），又能写美国建国思想史，现在还展示了和当代罗尔斯派斗智的笔力，这位老哥果真是全能型的奇才。但目前为止还没有看出他提出了什么建构性的方案。比如这本书，讲了很多不同层次的问题，批判罗尔斯egalitarianism也很到位，但最终也不太清楚他到底有什么积极建议。最后两面似乎表达了他的一种共和主义民主理论的主张：民主代表制原则优先于分配正义原则？这对当代自由派意味着一条什么样的出路呢？
评分##谈representation的部分还有点意思
评分打通思想史（神正论）和当代政治理论任督二脉的杰作。从罗尔斯本科论文入手，析清罗尔斯正义论背后的“反伯拉纠主义”（anti-Palegianism）底色，进而呈现出当代自由主义在分配正义方面的根本困境。【挑剔如Samuel Moyn也不得不承认，“Nelson在其所涉足的每一个领域都有新东西可讲”，能翻译这么一位大神的著作也真是自己的一份荣幸了】
相关图书
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息，本站不存储任何数据与内容，任何内容与数据均与本站无关，如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度，google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 book.teaonline.club All Rights Reserved. 图书大百科 版权所有