論古德曼與湯普森的審議式民主理論
作者:王冠生（國立臺北大學通識教育中心副教授）
卷期：69卷第1期
日期：2024年3月
頁碼：25-50
DOI：https://doi.org/10.6210/JNTNU.202403_69(1).0002
摘要：
本文探討美國政治哲學家古德曼（Amy Gutmann）與湯普森（Dennis Thompson）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、同性戀婚姻合法化、積極平權措施……等難解的爭議時，常常會產生深層衝突。面對這些難解的爭議，古德曼與湯普森認為不該以多數決來制定決策，而應以溝通審議的模式尋求共識，此更有助於提升決策品質、維繫社會穩定。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，再加上古德曼與湯普森強調審議民主應遵循互惠性原則、公開性原則，以及保障自由、平等價值，此相當符合羅爾斯以公共理性理論解決多元文化社會中重大衝突的模式。因此，墨西度（Stephen Macedo）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；傅利曼（Samuel Freeman）更稱古德曼與湯普森為「羅爾斯式審議理論者」。本研究將分析古德曼與湯普森之審議式民主論的特質，及其與羅爾斯公共理性論的關係。本研究同意古德曼與湯普森的理論是羅爾斯理論的延續，不過，由於這兩種理論在「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？」的問題上抱持相當不同的主張，因此，筆者並不認為古德曼與湯普森的理論可直接等同於「羅爾斯式審議理論」。此外，由於古德曼與湯普森的理論具有「兼具程序性與實質性、重視妥協的公民德性、尊重自由民主社會基本價值、強化公民意識、重視公民教育」等特質，因此在面對審議式民主論所受到的挑戰時，能夠逐一回應，並強調其審議式民主論有助於保障弱勢族群、挑戰政治權威、尋求政治共識、維繫社會穩定。此外，古德曼與湯普森主張未來應努力將審議式民主的精神推廣到教育、企業、媒體等領域，以促進社會活化與創新。
關鍵詞：公共理性、古德曼、湯普森、審議式民主、羅爾斯
《詳全文》
參考文獻：
- 古德曼（Amy Gutmann）、湯普森（Dennis Thompson），《商議民主》，謝宗學、鄭惠文譯，臺北市：智勝文化事業有限公司，2006。
- Bohman, James. “Public Reason and Cultural Pluralism: Political Liberalism and the Problem of Moral Conflict.” Political Theory 23, no. 2 (1995): 253-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591795023002004.
- Bohman, James and William Rehg, eds. Deliberative Democracy : Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2324.001.0001.
- Cooke, Maeve. “Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy.” In Democracy as Public Deliberation: New Perspectives, edited by Maurizio Passerin d’Entrèves, 53-87. New York, NY: Manchester University Press, 2002.
- Fish, Stanley. “Mutual Respect as a Device of Exclusion.” In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, edited by Stephen Macedo, 88-102. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00371.x.
» 展開更多
- 古德曼（Amy Gutmann）、湯普森（Dennis Thompson），《商議民主》，謝宗學、鄭惠文譯，臺北市：智勝文化事業有限公司，2006。
- Bohman, James. “Public Reason and Cultural Pluralism: Political Liberalism and the Problem of Moral Conflict.” Political Theory 23, no. 2 (1995): 253-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591795023002004.
- Bohman, James and William Rehg, eds. Deliberative Democracy : Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2324.001.0001.
- Cooke, Maeve. “Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy.” In Democracy as Public Deliberation: New Perspectives, edited by Maurizio Passerin d’Entrèves, 53-87. New York, NY: Manchester University Press, 2002.
- Fish, Stanley. “Mutual Respect as a Device of Exclusion.” In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, edited by Stephen Macedo, 88-102. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00371.x.
- Freeman, Samuel Richard. “Deliberative Democracy: A Sympathetic Comment.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 29, no. 4 (2000): 371-418.
- Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1996.
- Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. “Why Deliberative Democracy is Different.” Social Philosophy and Policy 17, no. 1 (2000): 161-180. https://doi.org/10.1017/S02650500002570.
- Gutmann, Amy, “Democracy & Democratic Education.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 12, no. 1 (1993): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01235468.
- Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. Why Deliberative Democracy?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.
- Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.
- Kymlicka, Will. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002.
- Macedo, Stephen, ed. Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999. Macedo, Stephen. “In Defense of Liberal Public Reason: Are Slavery and Abortion Hard Cases?.” In Natural Law and Public Reason, edited by Robert P. George and Christopher Wolfe, 11-49. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000.
- Nussbaum, Martha. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
- Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674042605.
- Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1993.
- Rawls, John. The Law of Peoples; With “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
- Raz, Joseph. “Disagreement in Politics.” The American Journal of Jurisprudence 43, no. 1 (1998): 25-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/43.1.25.
- Sandel, Michael J. “A Response to Rawls’ Political Liberalism.” in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, edited by Michael. J. Sandel, 184-218. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1017/CB09780511810152.008.
- Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009.
- Sanders, Lynn. M. “Against Deliberation.” Political Theory 25, no. 3 (1997): 347-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591797025003002.
- Shapiro, Ian. “Enough of Deliberation.” In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, edited by Stephen Macedo, 28-38. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999. https://doi.rog/10.1093/oso/9780195131918.003.0003.
- Stokes, Susan. C. “Pathologies of Deliberation.” In Deliberative Democracy, edited by Jon Elster, 123-139. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175005.007.
- Sunstein, Cass. “The Law of Group Polarization.” Journal of Political Philosophy 10, no. 2 (2002): 175-195.
- Vasak, Karel. “Human Rights: A Thirty-Year Struggle.” UNESCO Courier 11 (1977): 29-32.
- Walzer, Michael. “Deliberation, and What Else?.” In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, edited by Stephen Macedo, 58-69. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195131918.003.0006.
Journal directory listing - Volume 69 (2024) - Journal of NTNU【69(1)】March
On Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson’s Theory of Deliberative Democracy
Author: Kuan-Sheng Wang（Center for General Education National Taipei University Associate Professor）
Vol.&No.：Vol. 69, No. 1
Date：March 2024
Pages：25-50
DOI：https://doi.org/10.6210/JNTNU.202403_69(1).0002
Abstract：
This article explores the theory of deliberative democracy, which was proposed by American political philosophers Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson. The contemporary society is a value-pluralistic society where people embrace different moral perspectives, religious beliefs, and worldviews. When citizens are confronted with controversial topics, such as abortion, euthanasia, legalization of same-sex marriage, and affirmative action, they often encounter profound and challenging underlying conflicts. Regarding these controversies, Gutmann and Thompson argue that decision-making should be based not on majority rule but on reaching consensus through deliberative communication. This process further contributes to enhancing the quality of decision-making and maintaining social stability. Gutmann and Thompson advocate applying Rawls’ concept of reflective equilibrium as the methodological foundation for deliberative democracy. In addition, they emphasize that a deliberative democracy should adhere to the principles of reciprocity and publicity and safeguard freedom and equality. This model aligns well with Rawls’ model of resolving key conflicts in multicultural societies by applying the theory of public reason. Therefore, Stephen Macedo contends that Gutmann and Thompson’s deliberative democracy is an extension and reformulation of Rawls’ theory of public reason instead of a replacement for the theory. Samuel Freeman further identifies Gutmann and Thompson as “Rawlsian deliberative democrats.” In this paper, I analyze the characteristics of the theory of deliberative democracy theory of Gutmann and Thompson, as well as their relationship with Rawls’ theory of public reason. I agree that Gutmann and Thompson’s theory extends Rawls’ theory. However, because of major differences in their positions on questions such as whether deliberative outcomes can be provisional agreements and whether political decisions can be determined by majority rule, I do not consider Gutmann and Thompson’s theory as direct equivalents to the Rawlsian deliberative theory. In addition, the characteristics of Gutmann and Thompson’s theory (e.g., the combination of procedural and substantive elements, emphasis on the civic virtue of compromise, respect for the fundamental values of a liberal democratic society, reinforcement of civic awareness, and emphasis on civic education) enable them to systematically respond to challenges that theories of deliberative democracy must overcome. Deliberative democracy contributes to safeguarding vulnerable groups, challenging political authority, seeking political consensus, and maintaining social stability. Furthermore, Gutmann and Thompson advocate that the spirit of deliberative democracy should be extended to areas such as education, business, and media, with the aim of promoting social revitalization and innovation.
Keywords：public reason, Amy Gutmann, Dennis Thompson deliberative democracy, John Rawls.