Matthew Lister on Globalization, Immigration, and Refugees at 3:AM(Matthew Lister論全球化、移民與難民)

Matthew Lister接受3:AM的訪談,討論全球化、移民與難民等問題的政治哲學分析(按此瀏覽)!這一篇非常推薦給大家!裡面實質觀點從檢討羅爾斯式的主張開始,但是我認為最吸引人的是他如何成為一個哲學家!很精彩的經過,從為了與朋友交談開始看書到參加the Peace Corps 一句俄語都不會進入俄羅斯,到進入UPenn的法學院的JD,很精彩的經過!推薦給大家!!

Advertisements

Symposium: John Rawls’s Political Liberalism

新一期的Ethics刊載了很吸引人的文章,除了Shapiro跟Plunkett的法理學文章之外(按此看相關轉載),還有之前我們曾經轉載過的Gerald Gaus對於Rawls政治自由主義的文章(按此瀏覽相關轉載),而剛發現到Gaus這一篇文章是一系列對於Rawls的政治自由主義出版25週年的研討會文章之一,還有其他很值得看的文章,例如 Erin I. Kelly 的 The Historical Injustice Problem for Political Liberalism 、Paul Weithman 的Autonomy and Disagreement about Justice in Political Liberalism 、 Rainer Forst 的 Political Liberalism: A Kantian View 跟 John Skorupski 的 Rawls, Liberalism, and Democracy 一文。強烈推薦給大家!!

 


James Grant’s Interview at 3:AM

James Grant接受3:AM的訪問, 討論美學問題. 這是一篇收穫很多的訪談,推薦給大家。


Andre LeDuc on Competing Accounts of Interpretation and Practical Reasoning in the Debate Over Originalism

Andre LeDuc在SSRN上面發表了一篇文章:Competing Accounts of Interpretation and Practical Reasoning in the Debate Over Originalism,對於美國憲法解釋理論中的原意主義採取了批判的檢討立場,質疑隱含在原意主義內的兩個預設:1. 將憲法推理視為一種形式主義的過程。2. 憲法決定的核心任務就是去解釋憲法。你如果對於美國憲法解釋方法論之爭有興趣,這一篇很值得一看!推薦給大家!

前幾天有機會在憲法解釋理論與實務中發表關於美國新原意主義方法論的文章,之後看到Andre LeDuc這一篇發現他也在思考同樣的問題,而且他更直接挑戰「解釋與建構」這組區分。此外,另一個可參考的意見是,Lawrence Solum教授在自己的部落格中針對Andre LeDuc的主張給出一些說明跟批判(按此閱讀)。簡單來說,就是Solum教授認為Leduc在閱讀他的文章上有誤解以及閱讀到「舊」的文章(Semantic Originalism),SO是一篇近十年前的文章,許多重要論點已經有修正與細緻化。我個人是覺得,這不能怪LeDuc,因為連我自己在寫研討會文章的第一份初稿時,也是以SO作為主要參考對象,之後因為發現有些主張是需要更釐清,寫信詢問後才知道SO中的論點已被修正與超越!總之,Solum認為LeDuc中對他立場的詮釋是需要修正的!這部分,請大家自行判斷了!


莊世同論海耶克的法治觀(Shih-Tung Chuang on On Hayek’s Liberal Conception of the Rule of Law)

Prof. Shih-Tung Chuang‘s article, On Hayek’s Liberal Conception of the Rule of Law, has been published by National Taiwan University Law Journal. Here is the abstract which gives you a heads-up on the arguments how Prof. Chuang develops.(More detail is HERE!!)  Highly Recommendation!!

As a representative of twentieth century classical liberalism, Friedrich August von Hayek is not only an important economist, political thinker, social philosopher and public intellectual, but a legal philosopher not to be dismissed. In his thoughts, the concept of liberty plays a central role and the ideal of the rule of law is regarded as the foundation of liberty. For Hayek, the rule of law means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand. Accordingly, the rule of law is a formal conception in the sense that it precludes the idea of social justice pursuing the substantive distribution of resources. The formal conception of the rule of law only consists of three attributes: the general and abstract rules, rules being known and certain, and equality before the law. Without the rule of law, he argues, individual liberties are so apt to be coerced by the arbitrary will in which human society will finally step into the road to serfdom. Part II surveys the core ideas and main arguments in Hayek’s formal conception of the rule of law. I will discuss two important distinctions in his legal theory: the distinction of spontaneous order and designed order and the distinction of the law of liberty and the law of legislation. Based on these two distinctions, Hayek develops his rule of law theory – the rule of law as the foundation of liberty – by arguing that liberty, order, and law are closely related. Part III criticizes his negative conception of liberty and his account of legal equality. This essay attempts to argue that his negative conception of ‘liberty as the absence of coercion’ is inclined to the neo-Roman conception proposed by Quentin Skinner arguing that liberty is better to be understood as the negative conception of no-dependence. Furthermore, I also argue that the two formal elements implied in his account of legal equality – formality of application and formality of content – cannot be sustained. They are premised on his preference to the substantive value of the majority and his evolutionary version of western legal culture. In conclusion, I will summarize the two theses implicit in Hayek’s liberal legal thoughts.

莊世同老師的「論海耶克的自由主義法治觀:一個批判性的探索」已在臺大法學論叢刊載出來了,非常精彩,強烈推薦給大家!!(相關資訊在此


台灣法理學會經典導讀訪談:林文凱論寺田浩明的「權利與冤抑」

2017年下半年經典導讀第二場,將在11月21日(二),於慕哲咖啡舉辦。本次導讀將由黃源盛老師主持,林文凱老師擔任導讀人,針對寺田浩明的「權利與冤抑」一書進行深入淺出的介紹。請大家不要錯過!而法理學會也邀請林文凱老師在導讀正式開始之前進行一場小訪談,簡單介紹本書的內容、意義以及可以採取的批判性觀點,歡迎大家觀賞。(詳細資訊在此!


Gerald Gaus and Chad Van Schoelandt on Political Liberalism(Gaus與Schoelandt論羅爾斯的政治自由主義)

剛剛得知Ethics新一期的期刊刊載這一篇文章:Consensus on What? Convergence for What? Four Models of Political Liberalism,馬上下載來看!非常精彩!!請不要錯過!強烈推薦給大家!!