Social and Cosmopolitan Liberalism

A central divide in philosophical thought about international distributive justice separates 'social' from 'cosmopolitan' liberalism. These views differ about the nature of the problem of international justice: social liberals are primarily concerned about fairness to states or societies, whereas cosmopolitan liberals are concerned about fairness to individuals. This article explores three reasons why philosophers interested in international distributive justice often regard social liberalism as the more plausible view. These reasons have to do with alleged differences between domestic and international society: empirical beliefs about the sources of backwardness; and moral preconceptions about the fairest allocation of the costs of irresponsible economic and population policies. The article argues that none of these reasons is persuasive, and that the deep ethical distinction between the domestic and the international realms, on which social liberalism depends, is more difficult to defend that many philosophers have thought.     

Montaigne: Founder of Modern Liberalism

In this essay David Lewis Schaefer summarizes and defends the argument set forth in his book The Political Philosophy of Montaigne (Cornell University Press, 1990; second edition 2019) that Michele de Montaigne's Essays (first edition, 1580) merits consideration as a founding text of modern political liberalism. After responding to the most extensive published critique of his interpretation (by James Supple) and citing other recent studies that harmonize with his argument, Schaefer compares his analysis of Montaigne's political aims and political-ethical teaching with those set forth in two other recent studies: Philippe Desan's Montaigne: A Life and Pierre Manent's Montaigne: La Vie sans loi.     

对俄国自由主义的理论探讨

自由主义首先是一种政治思潮,其次是一种社会政治运动,再次是某种政治制度和管理原则的总和。自由主义是古代西欧明的创造,于近代形成为体系,并蔓延到东欧国家。俄国自由主义大体上是从外部引进的,并在发展过程中出现了许多的类型和派别,其中最重要的是立宪主义。俄国自由主义在实质方面与西方自由主义相同,但它的形成与发展过程困难重重,缺少相应的社会环境。俄国自由派脱离人民,成为一种“少数人的运动”,并且由于诸多原因最终走向失败。     

Hobbes,Liberalism, and Political Technique

Hobbes is commonly treated as a foundational figure for liberalism. This familiar view relies on emphasizing his account of the relationship between rights bearing individuals and state power. By contrast, this essay centers the practical question of how to govern, and develops this perspective to both question Hobbes's supposed liberalism and to demonstrate the utility of construing liberalism as more than a set of philosophical arguments regarding subject-state relations. In particular, understanding liberalism in terms of political technique offers a new perspective on the relationship between liberalism and republicanism.     

梁启超：自由主义的激进与保守

梁启超对中西文化调和的态度,使五四时期的梁启超似乎成了一个文化保守主义者。其实上世纪二十年代的梁启超与晚清民初时的梁启超无论是从思想的内容还是从思想的走向来说都是一致的,梁后期的文化保守主义与其最初的自由主义是一脉相承的,而且正是其最初对于自由主义的理解决定了其晚期文化保守主义的态度。本文是第一次从梁启超的自由主义思想方面来探讨梁的激进与保守与其自由主义思想的关系。