고대유가의 형이상학과 도덕철학에 근거한 맹자의 이념에 대한 논고

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

What kind of economic regime is more compatible with Rawlsian justice, private ownership or social ownership of the means of production? Since Rawls has published A Theory of Tustice,^2) there has been much debate over this problem. Some argue that A Theory of Tustice offers $quot;a philosophical apologia for an egalitarian brand of welfare state capitalism.$quot;^3) Others argue that his political and economic regime is completely different from the capitalism in the classical sense of Marxism.^4)
1) 이 논문은 1998년 8월 미국 보스턴에서 열린 제20회 세계 철학학술대회(the 20th World Congress of Philosophy) 기간 중 미국철학회 (The American Philosophical Association) 의 Travel Grant 수상 논문이다. 본 논문 발표는1998년 8월 Round Table Session: American Philosophy from Others' Perspective: Three Award-wining Essays Submitted to the APA by Younger Foreign Scholars에서 있었다.
2) John Ravels, A Theory of Tustice, (Cmnbridge; Harvard University Press, 1971). Henceforth called TJ.
3) Robert Paul Wolff, Understanding Rawts. A Reconstruction and Critique of $quot;A Theory of Tustice$quot;, (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1977), p.195. There are many other authors who regard Rawlsian justice as one of defences of welfare state capitalism, for example, A11an Ryan, A11en Buchanan, Amy Cutmann, Brian Barry, Barry Clark and Herbert Gintis, Carole Pateman, Norman Daniels, etc..
4) For example, Arthur DiQuattro, and Richard Krouse and Michael MacPherson.
But he himself rejects a welfare-state capitalism and illustrates a propertyowning democracy and a liberal (democratic) socialism as economic regimes consistent with his justice as fairness.^5)
I will deal with the following problems in this paper; what are the characteristic features of the property-owning democracy as an alternative to capitalism? Can a liberal democratic socialism be compatible with Rawls's political liberalism? I will argue that a property-owning democracy can be more compatible with Rawlsian justice than a liberal socialism, particularly concerning his political liberalism. And I will suggest my understanding of his property-owning democracy as a $quot;mixed$quot; rerime.
1. Rawls's Conception of Property-Owning Democracy^6)
a) the main institutions of Rawls's property-owning democracy
Rawls thinks that his property-owning democracy realizes all the main political values expressed by the two principles of justice, but a capitalist welfare state does not. He thinks of such a democracy as an alternative to capitalism. Concluding his survey, Raw1s outlines die main institutions of property-owning democracy as follows:
i) Provisions for securing the fair value of the political liberties,
ii) Provisions for realizing fair equality of opportunity in education and training,
iii) A basic level of health-care provided for all.^7)
5) J. Rawls (1989), Tustice as Fairness: A Guided Tour (Cambridge, Harvard University), p.l10. Henceforth called TF:GT.
6) It is from J.E. Meade's property-owning democracy. J. E. Meade, $quot;Efficiency, Equality and the Ownership of Property$quot;, Liberty, Equality and Efficiency (The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1993), pp.21-81, In this work, Meade proposes $quot;four possible lines of attack which we may summarise as the replacement of the Brave New Capitalists' Paradise by i) A Trade Union State, ii) A Welfare State, iii) A Property-Owning Democracy, iv) A Socialist State.