愛彌爾與世界精神:一個在地普世主義的途徑

Abstract

人類社會的本質好像彼此相似，卻又不盡相同。有些人相信世界上存在著一套諸如人權或民主規範的普世價值。有些人則認為一切的道德判斷必須基於某個社群特殊的社會意義。本文從移民的議題出發，探討普世民主政治與政治文化兩者在接納移民立場之間的差異。一旦對方向民主政治宣示效忠，我們就會有義務要接納移民嗎？或者我們作為政治社群的成員，為了維持一套穩定和健全的政治文化，有沒有權利拒絕移民呢？哲學家盧梭的《愛彌爾》提供一個可能的解答，其中的理由不是政治或文化上的，而是人類的同情心。換句話說，就是訴諸人道精神或全人類之愛。這個「盧梭式」的詮釋是所謂在地普世主義的核心。它承認政治社群的特殊性，卻又可以有限度地表現對外人的同情，另外也願意犧牲一部分的政治文化，作為追求普世人道精神之代價。藉由一個道德妥協，在地普世主義嘗試解釋臺灣以人道關懷為基礎，在反送中運動之後接納香港移民的現象。

Human societies are by nature both similar and distinct. Some believe the world shares a set of universal values such as human rights or democratic norms. Others insist all moral judgments must be based upon social meanings particular to certain community. This paper explores the differences between universal democracy and political culture from their standpoints on immigration. Do we have an obligation to accept immigrants given our common political allegiance toward democracy? Or do we, as members of a political community, have the rights to reject immigrants for the sake of maintaining a stable and wholesome political culture? A reading on philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Emile suggests a possible solution by appealing not to political or cultural reasons but to compassion. That is to say, the love of humanity. This interpretation of Rousseau serves as the backbone of an approach so called local universalism. Through a moral compromise, it tries to resolve the issue of Taiwan taking in Hong Kong immigrants by showing compassion to outsiders and acknowledging the necessary change in political culture for humanitarian concerns.