“人人生而平等”的论证困境∗--基于霍布斯、洛克的自然权利论

摘要

本文试图分析霍布斯和洛克的自然权利论为命题“人人生而平等”(这一命题在社会契约论中表述为“自然状态下人人平等”)所提供的三个论证并指出其中的不合理之处。这三个论证是：(1)人们在自然状态下能力大致相等；(2)所有人在自然状态下平等地拥有“自然权利”；(3)在自然状态下人们平等地拥有“生命、财产和自由”三项基本权利。其中，前两个论证是霍布斯和洛克都阐述过的，而第三个论证则是洛克自然权利论区别于霍布斯自然权利论的重要之点。%This article tries to analyze three arguments for the proposition that “everyone was born equally” ( which is also expressed as“everyone is equal in the state of nature” in social contact theory) raised by John Lock and Thomas Hobbes. These three arguments are:(1) All people are nearly equal in ability in the state of nature;( 2 ) All people equally own nature rights in the state of nature; ( 3 ) In the state of nature all people equally own three basic rights, which are “life, property and liberty”. Locke and Hobbes had both discussed first two arguments, while only Locke has discussed the third argument, which signals the important difference between Locke and Hobbes.