契約論

契約論（英語：contractarianism^[1]），又作契約主義，^[2]是一種對政治權力合法性的一種系統論證的政治哲學理論，^[3]其最基本的論點是國家的產生來自人與人之間或人民與統治者之間相互訂立的契約。^[4]

概念淵源

契約論最早源自於古希臘智者學派，它描繪了一幅法律誕生之前的自然狀態，為了走出自然狀態進入文明社會，國家和法律就誕生了，統治的合法性建立在個體的同意和授權之上，政府的權力來源於自然權利的讓渡。然而，對於契約的作用，智者派學者們觀點各異甚至對立，普羅泰戈拉傾向於肯定契約的作用，安提豐等則對契約及其產物——人為法基本上採取否定的態度。他們對社會契約形成的論證不充分，並且對其作用的表述也不夠明確。

蘇格拉底是歐洲政治思想史上最早提出國家與公民之間的關係是契約關係的先驅之一，即使被民眾無故判處死刑，朋友勸其越獄以自保，他卻為維護法律契約的權威而甘願赴死。但是，古希臘哲學家伊壁鳩魯及其弟子亦即伊壁鳩魯學派則是歷史上最早從理論上深刻而系統地闡述了契約論思想。

伊壁鳩魯借用和改造了德謨克利特的「原子」理論，認為國家與法律是契約的產物，其價值在於保障個人的自由和安全。^[5]伊壁鳩魯學派和斯多葛派分別從人的特殊性和普遍性兩個方面提出並論證了契約論。^[6]

參考

社會契約

參考文獻

^ 陳德中. 政治现实主义的逻辑：“自主性”与“封闭性”缘与由: "自主性"与"封闭性"缘与由. 1 January 2015: 149– [2019-01-02]. ISBN 978-7-5161-5894-4. （原始內容存檔於2020-10-21）.
^ 曾瑞明. 參與對等與全球正義. 聯經出版事業公司. 30 April 2014: 82– [2019-01-02]. ISBN 978-957-08-4382-8. （原始內容存檔於2020-10-21）.
^ 蔡拓. 契约论研究. 南開大學出版社. 1987 [2019-01-02]. （原始內容存檔於2020-10-21）.
^ "For the name social contract (or original contract) often covers two different kinds of contract, and, in tracing the evolution of the theory, it is well to distinguish them. Both were current in the 17th century and both can be discovered in Greek political thought. ... [The first] generally involved some theory of the origin of the state. The second form of social contract may be more accurately called the contract of government, or the contract of submission.... Generally, it has nothing to do with the origins of society, but, presupposing a society already formed, it purports to define the terms on which that society is to be governed: the people have made a contract with their ruler which determines their relations with him. They promise him obedience, while he promises his protection and good government. While he keeps his part of the bargain, they must keep theirs, but if he misgoverns the contract is broken and allegiance is at an end." J. W. Gough, The Social Contract (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936), pp. 2–3. Modern revivals of social contract theories have not been as concerned with the origin of the state.
^ 蔡磊; 蔡昌. 构建税收诚信：基于电子商务行业发展视角. 15 July 2015: 50– [2019-01-02]. ISBN 978-7-5095-6287-1. （原始內容存檔於2020-10-21）.
^ 古希臘羅馬時期的"契約論". 人民網. 2005年10月27日 [2019年1月2日]. （原始內容存檔於2019年1月2日）.

[陈德中2015-1] 陳德中. 政治现实主义的逻辑：“自主性”与“封闭性”缘与由: "自主性"与"封闭性"缘与由. 1 January 2015: 149– [2019-01-02]. ISBN 978-7-5161-5894-4. （原始內容存檔於2020-10-21）.

[曾瑞明2014-2] 曾瑞明. 參與對等與全球正義. 聯經出版事業公司. 30 April 2014: 82– [2019-01-02]. ISBN 978-957-08-4382-8. （原始內容存檔於2020-10-21）.

[蔡拓1987-3] 蔡拓. 契约论研究. 南開大學出版社. 1987 [2019-01-02]. （原始內容存檔於2020-10-21）.

[4] "For the name social contract (or original contract) often covers two different kinds of contract, and, in tracing the evolution of the theory, it is well to distinguish them. Both were current in the 17th century and both can be discovered in Greek political thought. ... [The first] generally involved some theory of the origin of the state. The second form of social contract may be more accurately called the contract of government, or the contract of submission.... Generally, it has nothing to do with the origins of society, but, presupposing a society already formed, it purports to define the terms on which that society is to be governed: the people have made a contract with their ruler which determines their relations with him. They promise him obedience, while he promises his protection and good government. While he keeps his part of the bargain, they must keep theirs, but if he misgoverns the contract is broken and allegiance is at an end." J. W. Gough, The Social Contract (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936), pp. 2–3. Modern revivals of social contract theories have not been as concerned with the origin of the state.

[蔡磊蔡昌2015-5] 蔡磊; 蔡昌. 构建税收诚信：基于电子商务行业发展视角. 15 July 2015: 50– [2019-01-02]. ISBN 978-7-5095-6287-1. （原始內容存檔於2020-10-21）.

[6] 古希臘羅馬時期的"契約論". 人民網. 2005年10月27日 [2019年1月2日]. （原始內容存檔於2019年1月2日）.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]