請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/66577
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 王遠義 | |
dc.contributor.author | Hung-Yi Chen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳浤鎰 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T00:44:14Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-01-13 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2012-01-13 | |
dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2012-01-10 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 壹、中文部份
王曉冬,朱之江譯,2005,《自由的鐵籠:哈耶克傳》,南京:江蘇人民出版社。 譯自 Gamble, Andrew. Hayek the iron cage of liberty. 1996 何信全,1988,《海耶克自由理論研究》,台北:聯經。 李日章譯,1984,《自然法-法律哲學導論》,台北市:聯經。譯自 d’Entreves, A.P. Natural Law: An Introduction to Legal Philosophy. 1951. 李世榮,2007,〈海耶克自由主義的證成途徑:社會演化之方法論的典範〉,《政 治與社會哲學評論》,23:123-178。 李常山譯,1986,《論人類不平等的起源和基礎》,台北:唐山出版社。譯自 Rousseau Jean-Jacoues. A Discourse on Inequality. Great Britain: Richard Clay Ltd. 1984. 周德偉,1975,《當代大思想家 海耶克學說綜述》,台北市:正中書局。 殷海光,1979,《海耶克和他的思想》,台北市:傳記文學出版社。 夏道平譯,1993,《個人主義與經濟秩序》,台北市:遠流。譯自 Hayek, F.A. Individualism and Economic Order. 1949. 陳奎德,1999,〈海耶克〉,台北市:東大圖書公司。 錢永祥,2002,〈演化論適合陳述自由主義嗎?—對哈耶克式論證的反思〉,《台 灣社會研究季刊》,46:173-191。 謝宗林等譯,1995,《不要命的自負:社會主義的種種錯誤》,台北市:遠流。譯 自 Hayek, F.A. The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. 1988. 貳、西文部份 Aaron, Eric. 2009. Hayek versus Marx and Today’s Challenges. Oxon: Routledge. Burczak, Theodore A., 2006. Socialism after Hayek. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. Caldwell, Bruce. 2004. Hayek’s Challenge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Canavan, S.J. Francis P. 1960. The political Reason of Edmund Burke. Durham, N. C. :Duke University Press. d’Entreves, A.P. 1951. Natural Law: An Introduction to Legal Philosophy. London: Hutchinson University Library. Ebenstein, Alan. 2001. Friedrich Hayek -A Biography. New York: Palgrave. Gray, John. 1986. Hayek on Liberty. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Gray, John. 1998. Hayek on Liberty. London: Routledge. Hamowy, Ronald 1987. “Law and the Liberal Society: F.A. Hayek’s constitution of Liberty.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 2(4): 287-297. Hayek, F.A. 1944. The Road to Serfdom. London: Routledge. Hayek, F.A. 1949. Individualism and Economic Order. London: Routledge&Kegan Paul Ltd. Hayek, F. A. 1960. The Constitution of Liberty. London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. Hayek, F. A. 1978. New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hayek, F. A. 1982. Law, Legislation and Liberty. London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. Hayek, F.A. 1984. The Essence of Hayek. ed. Chiaki Nishiyama, Kurt R. Leube. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press. Hayek, F.A. 1988. The Fatal Conceit : The Errors of Socialism. London: Routledge. Hayek, F.A. 1994. Hayek On Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue, ed. Stephen Kresge, Leif Wenar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hayes, Calvin. 2009. Popper, Hayek and the Open Society. Oxon: Routledge. Hoover, R. Kenneth. 1999.“Ideologizing Institutions: Laski, Hayek, Kynes and the creation of contemporary politics.” Journal of Political Ideologies 4(1): 87-115. Johnston, David. 1997. “Hayek’s Attack on Social Justice.” Critical Review 11(1): 81-100. Keller, Michael Anton. 1987. Hayek’s Theory of Justice: A Study of Justification. Michigan: UMI Dissertation Information Service. Kukathas, Chandran. 1989. Hayek and Modern Liberalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Livingstone, Donald W. 1991. “Hayek as Humean.” Critical Review 5(2): 159-177. Lukes, Steven. 1997. “Social Justice: The Hayekian Challenge.” Critical Review 11(1): 65-80. Mill, J. S. 1998. Utilitarianism. ed. Roger Crisp. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ogus, A. I. 1989. “Law and Spontaneous Order: Hayek’s Contribution to Legal Theory.” Journal of Law and Society. 16(4): 393-409. Raz, Joseph. 1979. “The Rule of Law and Its Virtue.” In Liberty and the Rule of Law, ed. Robert L. Cunningham. US: Texts A&M University Press, 3-21. Rowland, Barbara M. 1987. Ordered Liberty and the Constitutional Framework- The Political Thought of Friedrich A. Hayek. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Inc. Tamanaha, Brian Z. 2004. On the Rule of Law, History, Politics, Theory. UK: Cambridge University Press. Williams, Juliet. 1997. “On the Road Again: Hayek and the rule of law.” Critical Review 11(1): 101-120. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/66577 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 海耶克在思想上的貢獻之一,便是基於恢復古典自由主義的理念,對抗十八到二十世紀的社會主義思潮與社會正義觀。當時的社會主義雖各有不同的社會改革方案,核心原則仍不脫離分配正義的理念(distributive justice)。根據分配正義的基本理念,每個人應根據付出多寡得到相應的報酬,而非由少數資本家壟斷資源,決定配額。因此社會資源應由政府主動控制與分配,才可能更公平的根據不同人的需求與勞動情況分配到不同人身上。然而,海耶克透過解釋個人知識侷限以及自由社會運作的原理,批判分配性的社會正義是一個虛幻且容易危害個人自由的概念。本文試圖指出,海耶克雖然極力批判分配性的社會正義,但仍不可忽略他闡述的社會理論與正義理論之間的互通,兩者可能共同構成海耶克未明言的社會正義觀。而且由於社會理論與正義理論的相互支持,使他的正義理論不能單以形式的角度看待,其中還揭示了社會道德的競合過程,並作為社會演化中的獨立道德標準,賦予行為規則實質的道德意義。本文認為,以演化而來的行為規則為基礎,通過法治原則的檢驗,在社會道德競合過程中脫穎而出,為社會成員確知的種種正義行為規則,代表著海耶克的社會正義觀。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | One of the contribution in F.A. Hayek’s academic research is that he bases on the notion of classic liberalism to fight the trends of socialism and its conception of social justice prevalent in the 18~20BC. According to socialists, the broadly defined conception of social justice means everyone should get what they deserve, and social resources should be precisely redistributed by a central government rather than capitalists in order to eliminate the inequality of income, properties and social classes. However, Hayek deems this concept as a mirage and that it would interfere with individual freedom by elucidating the necessary limit of human knowledge and the principle of operation about free society. This thesis intends to argue that although Hayek devotes to criticize the conception of distributive social justice, we shouldn’t neglect the connection between his social theory and theory of justice and that may unveil the hidden ideas of the broadly defined social justice in Hayek’s political philosophy. Then I would bring out that the selected rules of just conduct compatible with the rule of law could demonstrate Hayek’s conception of social justice. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T00:44:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-101-R97322007-1.pdf: 791175 bytes, checksum: c744aef6e96d60a48204fd1722f7998c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄
口試委員會審定書 Ⅰ 謝辭 Ⅱ 中文摘要 .Ⅳ 英文摘要 ....V 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與目的 1 第二節 文獻回顧 5 第二章 對社會正義的批評與界定 10 第一節 集體主義的變種:社會主義的分配性正義 10 第二節 批評與界定 12 壹、對社會主義與分配性社會正義的批評 12 貳、海耶克如何界定社會正義? 16 第三章 海耶克的社會秩序觀 18 第一節 演化式理性與建構式理性 18 第二節 兩種社會秩序:自發性秩序與組織性秩序 22 第三節 兩種秩序中的行為規則:Nomos和Thesis 26 第四節 自發性秩序裡的正義 32 第四章 正義的行為規則與正義原則 36 第一節 行為規則的來源與類型 36 第二節 不同法律思想學派對行為規則的看法 38 第三節 個人自由與法律的優先性 40 第四節 正義原則以及社會道德的競合 45 第五節 一般性原則與平等性原則的道德意義 53 第六節 海耶克的正義觀是形式正義還是實質正義? 56 第五章 結論 62 參考文獻 70 表圖目次 表1-1 7 表3-1 28 表3-2 30 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 海耶克的社會正義觀 | zh_TW |
dc.title | F.A.Hayek's conception of Social Justice | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 100-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.coadvisor | 張福建 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 蔡英文,楊貞德 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 分配正義,社會演化,自發性秩序,正義行為規則,法治, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Distributive Justice,Social Evolution,Spontaneous Order,Rules of Just Conduct,Rule of Law, | en |
dc.relation.page | 73 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2012-01-10 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 政治學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 政治學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-101-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 772.63 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。