SOCIETAS: A Journal for Philosophical Study of Public Affairs
logo-SOCIETAS: A Journal for Philosophical Study of Public Affairs

SOCIETAS: A Journal for Philosophical Study of Public Affairs
logo_m-SOCIETAS: A Journal for Philosophical Study of Public Affairs

    Jump To中央區塊/Main Content :::
  • News
  • About
  • Editorial Board
  • Volumes
  • Notes to Contributors
  • Subscription
  • Contact
  • RCHSS
中文
RCHSS
search
SOCIETAS: A Journal for Philosophical Study of Public Affairs
  • Home
  • Volumes
  • SOCIETAS: A Journal for Philosophical Study of Public Affairs, No 79 (2023/12)
  • Facebook
  • line
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Print
2023 / December No.79
On the Relationship Between Normative Theories and Institutions: A Lesson Learned from the Methodological Debate on Rights of Secession
發刊日期/Published Date
2023 / December
中英文篇名/Title
論制度與規範理論之關係:以分離權之方法論爭辯為例
On the Relationship Between Normative Theories and Institutions: A Lesson Learned from the Methodological Debate on Rights of Secession
論文屬性/Type
一般論文 Article
作者/Author
黃嘉鴻
Chia-Hung Huang
頁碼/Pagination
115-161
摘要/Abstract

本文藉由分離權的方法論爭辯, 批判制度推論。我檢視Sangiovanni 的主張,並考慮分離權論辯裡Buchanan 與Lefkowitz 支持制度論的理由。本文主張Sangiovanni 對非制度論之理解有誤。當吾人對其理解正確,就會贊同非制度論也能解決知識不確定性。此外,因為制度論者對整體論的要求無法在概念層次成立,也無法證明其理論結果總是在可行性上勝過非制度論。反之,非制度推論能克服制度論內生的道德損失與現狀偏差。雖然非制度論可能在判斷原則之適用上有過度自由心證的疑慮,但其本身能推導出「無可避免性」、「最低道德限度」、「制度化效果」三個條件限制判斷的使用、杜絕該疑慮。本文因此結論,規範性政治理論家沒有方法上的必然採取制度式推論,非制度推論反而更適合規範性政治理論。

This article revisits the reasons for institutionalism as a (practice-dependent) method of normative political theory by examining the similar debate on rights of secession. Seeing non-institutionalism (i.e. practice-independent approaches) as rival, institutionalists proclaims that theorists should prioritise using institutionalism because it can address epistemic uncertainty successfully, deliver complete and high feasible principles for action due to holistic reasoning, and avoid theorists’ subject judgement. I argue that, learning from the methodological debate in secession theories, these three reasons all fail to support the claim. Theorists are not necessarily required to use institutionalism to construct normative political theories because, shown by non-institutionalists in secession theory, practice-independent methods can address epistemic uncertainty. Also, holistic reasoning is unnecessary for political theory given that the idea of institutional concept is context dependent. Institutionalism does not even demand high feasibility but just makes sure the principles compatible with extant practices. Non-institutionalism would not deny such compatibility for regulative principles. Non-institutionalists could also counter the charge of subject judgement by conforming to the inevitability, the moral threshold, and the consequentialist conditions. Finally, the problems of moral remainder and status bias often taint institutionalism, making theorists hesitant to prioritise the method for theorising.

關鍵字/Keyword
實務依賴/實務脫離, 非制度論/制度論, 協調式推論/工具式推論/原生式/補償式分離權
practice-dependence / practice-independence, non-institutionalism / institutionalism, mediated deduction / instrumental application / the primary / remedial right to secede
學科分類/Subject

主題分類/Theme

DOI
檔案下載/Download
PDF Full Text
熱門文章
  • Uncertainty and Right-wing Populism in Europa

    Hsiao-Mei Juan

  • Technology-mediated Daily Practices: An Analytical Framework—Cases from Blood Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Delivery Technologies

    Yu-Cheng Liu

  • Adam Smith’s Discussion of Empire and Its Context

    Jeng-Guo Chen

  • Artificial Sociality: Ethnomethodological Inquiry into Artificial Intelligence as a Social Phenomenon

    Yu-Cheng Liu

  • The Paradoxes of Sovereignty and the State of Exception: From Agamben Back to Schmitt

    Hsi-Ping Schive


相關文章
  • Economics and Ontology
  • The Disappearing of Plural Imaginations: On the Relationships between Theory and Experience in Sociology
  • Killing and Letting Die: The Equivalence Thesis
  • An Appraisal of the Varieties of Theories of Fields in Terms of Multiple Correspondence Analysis
  • Debunking the Protected Reason Model: A Critical Reflection on Raz’s Reason-Based Account of Law

  • News
  • About
  • Editorial Board
  • Volumes
  • Notes to Contributors
  • Subscription
  • Contact

Tel: 886-2-2782-1693 Fax: (02)2785-4160

© Copyright 2026. RCHSS Sinica All Rights Reserved.Privacy Policy & Security PolicyVersion:V1.1.3