托马斯·霍布斯的《利维坦》中有多少种正义?

E. Karchagin
{"title":"托马斯·霍布斯的《利维坦》中有多少种正义?","authors":"E. Karchagin","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2022-1-87-108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the problem of the multiplicity of justice in Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. The Leviathan combines at least two understandings of justice; the civil one is connected with the keeping of covenants, while the natural one is a law of nature. We demonstrate that monistic views reducing civil justice to natural justice or natural justice to civil justice are as inadequately justified as denying justice at all. Hobbes uses two terms for justice, justice and equity. The latter is natural and binds the sovereign, while the former is created by the sovereign so that the sovereign is not accountable to the principle of justice. The natural poly-semantism of justice postulated in Leviathan finds its solution in the power of the sovereign, which sets the limits of semantic uncertainty and teaches his subjects what justice is. The case of Hobbes’ Foole shows that any definition of justice that goes against the definition of the sovereign will be interpreted as unacceptable. At the same time, there is a possibility for a number of other types of justice. Due to the introduction of the global and eschatological contexts, we get two types of natural justice (pre-civil and international), four types of civil justice (two local-civil and two global-civil), and one global theological (eschatological) justice. This number of conceptions can be considered in a contensive unity, because of the theological foundation of theorizing about justice in Leviathan due to the coincidence of natural and divine laws and the understanding of the commonwealth as a mortal God.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Many Types of Justice are in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan?\",\"authors\":\"E. Karchagin\",\"doi\":\"10.17323/1728-192x-2022-1-87-108\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article examines the problem of the multiplicity of justice in Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. The Leviathan combines at least two understandings of justice; the civil one is connected with the keeping of covenants, while the natural one is a law of nature. We demonstrate that monistic views reducing civil justice to natural justice or natural justice to civil justice are as inadequately justified as denying justice at all. Hobbes uses two terms for justice, justice and equity. The latter is natural and binds the sovereign, while the former is created by the sovereign so that the sovereign is not accountable to the principle of justice. The natural poly-semantism of justice postulated in Leviathan finds its solution in the power of the sovereign, which sets the limits of semantic uncertainty and teaches his subjects what justice is. The case of Hobbes’ Foole shows that any definition of justice that goes against the definition of the sovereign will be interpreted as unacceptable. At the same time, there is a possibility for a number of other types of justice. Due to the introduction of the global and eschatological contexts, we get two types of natural justice (pre-civil and international), four types of civil justice (two local-civil and two global-civil), and one global theological (eschatological) justice. This number of conceptions can be considered in a contensive unity, because of the theological foundation of theorizing about justice in Leviathan due to the coincidence of natural and divine laws and the understanding of the commonwealth as a mortal God.\",\"PeriodicalId\":102221,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2022-1-87-108\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2022-1-87-108","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了霍布斯《利维坦》中正义的多重性问题。《利维坦》结合了至少两种对正义的理解;民事法律与遵守契约有关,而自然法律则是自然法。我们证明,一元论的观点将民事正义归结为自然正义或将自然正义归结为民事正义是不充分的,就像否认正义一样。霍布斯用了两个词来描述正义,正义和公平。后者是自然的,约束着主权者,而前者是由主权者创造的,因此主权者不必对正义原则负责。《利维坦》所假定的正义的自然多语义学在君主的权力中找到了解决办法,君主的权力设定了语义不确定性的界限,并教导他的臣民什么是正义。霍布斯的愚人案表明,任何与主权定义相悖的正义定义都将被解释为不可接受的。与此同时,也有可能出现一些其他类型的司法。由于全球和末世论语境的引入,我们得到了两种类型的自然正义(前民事正义和国际正义),四种类型的民事正义(两种地方民事正义和两种全球民事正义)和一种全球神学正义(末世论正义)。这些概念可以被认为是一个有争议的统一,因为《利维坦》中正义理论化的神学基础,是由于自然和神圣法则的巧合,以及对联邦作为一个凡人上帝的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How Many Types of Justice are in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan?
The article examines the problem of the multiplicity of justice in Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. The Leviathan combines at least two understandings of justice; the civil one is connected with the keeping of covenants, while the natural one is a law of nature. We demonstrate that monistic views reducing civil justice to natural justice or natural justice to civil justice are as inadequately justified as denying justice at all. Hobbes uses two terms for justice, justice and equity. The latter is natural and binds the sovereign, while the former is created by the sovereign so that the sovereign is not accountable to the principle of justice. The natural poly-semantism of justice postulated in Leviathan finds its solution in the power of the sovereign, which sets the limits of semantic uncertainty and teaches his subjects what justice is. The case of Hobbes’ Foole shows that any definition of justice that goes against the definition of the sovereign will be interpreted as unacceptable. At the same time, there is a possibility for a number of other types of justice. Due to the introduction of the global and eschatological contexts, we get two types of natural justice (pre-civil and international), four types of civil justice (two local-civil and two global-civil), and one global theological (eschatological) justice. This number of conceptions can be considered in a contensive unity, because of the theological foundation of theorizing about justice in Leviathan due to the coincidence of natural and divine laws and the understanding of the commonwealth as a mortal God.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Is Ethnic Discrimination a Matter of Common Sense in the Fight against Crime and Terrorism? On Violence in History Post-City (II): Cartographies of Imaginaton and Co-spatiality Politics Radical Democratic Model of Politics as a Response to the Problem of Refugees Political Integration The Philosopher Robert Spaemann and His Public Positions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1