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：25-52
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（deliberative democracy）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（affirmative action）⋯⋯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（reflective
equilibrium）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（principle of reciprocity）、公開性原則（principle of publicity），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（principle of publicity）更稱古德曼與湯普森為「羅爾斯式審議理論者」（Rawlsian deliberative theorists）。在本研究中，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，本研究並不認為古德
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
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：25-52
Abstract：
This paper intends to explore American political philosophers Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson’s theory of deliberative democracy. The contemporary society is a value-pluralistic society where people hold different moral perspectives, religious beliefs, and worldviews. When confronted with controversies such as abortion, euthanasia, legalization of same-sex marriage, affirmative action, and other issues, citizens often experience profound and difficult-to-resolve underlying conflicts. Faced with these intricate controversies, Gutmann and Thompson argue that decision-making should not be based on majority rule but rather should seek consensus through a communicative deliberative process. This further contributes to enhancing the quality of decisionmaking and maintaining social stability. Gutmann and Thompson advocate using Rawls’s reflective equilibrium as the methodological foundation for deliberative democracy. In addition, they emphasize that deliberative democracy should adhere to principles of reciprocity, publicity, and the safeguarding of freedom and equality values. This aligns well with Rawls’s model of resolving
significant conflicts in multicultural societies through the theory of public reason. Therefore, Stephen Macedo contends that Gutmann and Thompson’s deliberative democratic theory is the extension and reformulation of Rawls’s theory of public reason, rather than a replacement. Samuel Freeman further refers to Gutmann and Thompson as “Rawlsian deliberative theorists.” In this paper, I will analyze the characteristics of the 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 is an extension of Rawls’s theory. However, due to significant 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 directly equivalent to “Rawlsian deliberative theory.” In addition, due to the characteristics of Gutmann and Thompson’s theory, such as “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”, they can systematically respond to challenges faced by deliberative democracy theories. They underscore that deliberative democracy contributes to safeguarding vulnerable groups, challenging political authority, seeking political consensus, and maintaining social stability. Furthermore, Gutmann and Thompson advocate that in the future, efforts should be made to extend the spirit of deliberative democracy to areas such as education, business, media, and others, aiming to promote social revitalization and innovation.
Keywords：public reason, Amy Gutmann, Dennis Thompson deliberative democracy, John Rawls.