风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
正文
丹尼尔·贝尔教授在“寻找共同价值观”主题演讲
YouTube · 全球明日研究所
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7QYHEsdLG8&t=1241s
什么是共同价值观？它们从何而来？它们与普世价值观有何不同？丹尼尔·贝尔教授，政治学系主任……
人工智能概述
丹尼尔·贝尔的著作探讨了“新兴世界秩序”的复杂性，以及在日益多元化的全球环境中寻找共同价值观的挑战。他研究了社会如何应对不同文化、政治和经济体系之间的紧张关系，尤其是在后工业社会和新技术兴起的背景下。贝尔的分析强调了建立普遍接受的规范的难度，以及不同视角引发冲突的可能性。
以下是更详细的分析：
多元化问题：
贝尔承认，由于全球化、技术进步和社会结构的演变，现代世界的价值观和观点日益多元化。
超越自由民主：
他的著作，尤其是《超越自由民主》，深入探讨了传统自由主义模式在应对多元复杂性方面的局限性。
精英的作用：
贝尔探讨了精英在应对这些紧张局势中的作用，包括在塑造新兴世界秩序过程中可能出现的冲突与合作。
普遍主义与特殊主义之间的紧张关系：
贝尔的著作探讨了如何在尊重不同群体和文化的独特价值观和利益的同时，找到共同点。
对话的重要性：
他强调，不同观点之间需要对话和理解，才能应对多元化世界的复杂性。
本质上，贝尔的著作提供了一个理解新兴世界秩序所带来的挑战和机遇的框架，强调了在日益多元化的价值观和观点中找到共同点的必要性。
Professor Daniel Bell, Keynote at Finding Common Values
YouTube · Global Institute For Tomorrow 2022年10月19日
What are common values? Where do they come from? And how do they differ from universal values?
What are common values? Where do they come from? And how do they differ from universal values? Professor Daniel Bell, Chair of Political ...
AI Overview
Daniel Bell's work explores the complexities of an "emerging world order" and the challenge of finding common values amidst increasing global plurality. He examines how societies navigate the tensions between different cultural, political, and economic systems, particularly in the context of post-industrial society and the rise of new technologies. Bell's analysis highlights the difficulty of establishing universally accepted norms and the potential for conflict arising from diverse perspectives.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
The Problem of Plurality:
- Bell acknowledges the increasing diversity of values and perspectives in the modern world, stemming from globalization, technological advancements, and evolving social structures.
- Beyond Liberal Democracy:His work, particularly "Beyond Liberal Democracy," delves into the limitations of traditional liberal models in addressing the complexities of this plurality.
- The Role of Elites:Bell discusses the role of elites in navigating these tensions, including the potential for both conflict and cooperation in shaping the emerging world order.
- The Tension between Universalism and Particularism:Bell's work grapples with the challenge of finding common ground while respecting the distinct values and interests of different groups and cultures.
- The Importance of Dialogue:He emphasizes the need for dialogue and understanding between different perspectives as a way to navigate the complexities of a pluralistic world.
In essence, Bell's work provides a framework for understanding the challenges and opportunities presented by the emerging world order, emphasizing the need to find common ground amidst a growing diversity of values and perspectives.
<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>
我今天要讲的主题有两个部分：第一部分是寻找共同价值观，第二部分是新兴世界秩序中的多元性。我首先要问的问题是，我们如何找到共同价值观？嗯，它们是什么？我会提出一些建议，然后我会指出哪些领域存在着合法的多元性，应该得到世界各地不同社会的尊重。所以，让我先结束这个话题。第一部分是寻找共同价值观。当你问到这个问题时，你首先想到的往往是，当你问人们，尤其是政府人员、非政府组织工作人员，还是从事法律和国际法研究的学者，你问他们“共同价值观”是什么意思？他们总是说这很容易回答，答案是《世界人权宣言》，它于1948年由联合国大会通过，是所有民族和国家共同努力的标准。所以我们不需要再讨论这个问题了，什么是共同价值观，它已经存在了。被载入史册并得到联合国认可，为什么我们还要进一步讨论，为什么我们要进一步讨论而不是采取……我要说的是，我要看《世界人权宣言》，简称《世界人权宣言》，为什么它不足以让我们思考共同价值观呢？原因有几个，首先，它包含的权利在今天非常有争议，你还记得那是1948年，也就是第二次世界大战中盟军击败其他国家后不久，他们非常……这份文件，《世界人权宣言》，非常表达了西方列强的主导价值观，坦率地说，他们在第二次世界大战中取得了胜利，如果你今天看这份文件，它包含了一些条款，这些条款显然不会得到中国政府和世界许多政府的认可，例如，有一篇文章非常清楚地表明，我在幻灯片上看到它，它表明唯一道德上合法的政府形式是由人民通过自由公正的选举或秘密投票选出的政府，现在显然这是选拔领导人的一种方式，但并非唯一方式，也不是唯一合乎道德的方式。如今，声称自由公正的选举是选拔领导人的唯一合乎道德的方式，这极具争议。我们可以肯定，如果今天有一个大会讨论这类文件，那么那条条款今天不会被认可为一种共同价值观，或者另一条基本上认可财产权的条款，即每个人都有权拥有财产。这在资本主义国家也相当合理，你知道，财产权几乎被视为神圣不可侵犯的。
但在坚持社会主义经济理念的国家，包括中国，这将会非常非常有争议。我们可以肯定，如果今天就我们的共同价值观进行讨论，财产权不会引起很大争议，而且不太可能在今天得到联合国的认可。
如果今天有这样的讨论，那么《世界人权宣言》的另一个问题是，《世界人权宣言》是一份非常有价值的文件，我认为它有时确实有助于促进人权。人民受到压迫，但这肯定不是一份充分的文件。
当我们思考当今的共同价值观时，《世界人权宣言》的另一个问题是，它没有优先考虑各项权利，也没有在发生冲突的情况下提供指导。
我的意思是，它列出了相当长的权利清单，其中一些权利并不太有争议，比如任何人都不应被奴役或奴役。我的意思是，很少有政府，或者知识分子，会支持这一点。我的意思是，有时奴隶制仍然存在，但
它是以一种秘密的方式进行的，并没有得到公开认可。或者，还有生存权。
你知道，只有酷儿、疯狂的恐怖分子才会反对这一点。我的意思是，这些都是普遍的权利或利益，而且很少有人
会反对它们。但《世界人权宣言》也包含一些非常有争议的权利，或者至少是经济发达社会的特征。
例如，第24条规定，人人有权享受定期带薪休假。我的意思是，显然，
这是个好主意，但在贫穷国家。对于有许多其他优先事项的国家，你不能指望这些会得到强有力的支持，所以需要区分基本权利，或者说基本需求或利益，这些需求或利益是世界各地人民的真实需求或利益，无论其文化背景如何，无论其经济发展水平如何，例如不被奴役的权利、反对酷刑的权利或生存权，以及其他权利。
但在坚持社会主义经济理念的国家，包括中国，这将会非常非常有争议。我们可以肯定，如果今天就我们的共同价值观进行讨论，财产权不会引起很大争议，而且不太可能在今天得到联合国的认可。
如果今天有这样的讨论，那么《世界人权宣言》的另一个问题是，《世界人权宣言》是一份非常有价值的文件，我认为它有时确实有助于促进人权。人民受到压迫，但这肯定不是一份充分的文件。
当我们思考当今的共同价值观时，《世界人权宣言》的另一个问题是，它没有优先考虑各项权利，也没有在发生冲突的情况下提供指导。
我的意思是，它列出了相当长的权利清单，其中一些权利并不太有争议，比如任何人都不应被奴役或奴役。我的意思是，很少有政府，或者知识分子，会支持这一点。我的意思是，有时奴隶制仍然存在，但
它是以一种秘密的方式进行的，并没有得到公开认可。或者，还有生存权。
你知道，只有酷儿、疯狂的恐怖分子才会反对这一点。我的意思是，这些都是普遍的权利或利益，而且很少有人
会反对它们。但《世界人权宣言》也包含一些非常有争议的权利，或者至少是经济发达社会的特征。
例如，第24条规定，人人有权享受定期带薪休假。我的意思是，显然，
这是个好主意，但在贫穷国家。对于有许多其他优先事项的国家，你不能指望这些会得到强有力的支持，所以需要区分基本权利，或者说基本需求或利益，这些需求或利益是世界各地人民的真实需求或利益，无论其文化背景如何，无论其经济发展水平如何，例如不被奴役的权利、反对酷刑的权利或生存权，以及其他权利。
what I'm going to do today is there's two parts of this theme the first is finding common values and the second is
plurality in the emerging World Order and I'm going to first ask the question is how do we find common values um and what are they and I will make some suggestions and then I'll suggest areas where there is legitimate plurality that should be respected by different societies around the world so let me first quit this the
first part here finding common values now when you ask about that the first thing that often comes to mind when you ask people um whether it's especially government people or people working for ngos or academics who work in law and international law for example you ask them what do we mean by common values well they always say that's quite easy there's a response there's an answer to that it's the universal Declaration of Human Rights which was passed by the United Nations in 1948 by the general assembly as a common standard of achievement for All Peoples and Nations so we don't need to discuss anymore about this issue what are common values it's already there it's enshrined and it was endorsed by the United Nations why do we have to talk further well the reason why we have to talk further and not take I'm going to say I'm going to see Universal Declaration of Human Rights it's udhr for short why is that not a sufficient document for thinking about common values well there's several reasons first reason is that it includes rights that are very controversial today you remember this was 1948 shortly after the Allies as they say defeated other countries in World War II and they were very much um the document the universal Declaration of Human Rights very much expresses the dominant values of let's just be frank the Western Powers um that were Victorious uh in World War II if you look at the document today it includes articles that would clearly not be endorsed by for example the Chinese government and many governments around the world for example one article makes it very clear I have it here on on on on the slide it very it's it suggests that the only morally legitimate form of government is one that is selected by the People by means of free and fair elections or secret votes now obviously that's one way of selecting leaders but it's not the only way nor is it the only morally legitimate way it's very controversial to claim that free and fair elections today is the only morally legitimate way of selecting leaders and we can be quite sure that if there were a general assembly today discussing this sort of document that that article would not be endorsed as a kind of common value today or another article basically endorsing the right to property that everyone has the right to own property alone well again in capitalist countries fair enough you know that is a a the right to property is is almost held sacred often
but in countries that adhere to socialist uh economic uh ideals including China it would be very very controversial and we can be sure that if there were deliberations today about what our common values that the right to property would not would be highly controversial and unlikely would not be endorsed today by the United Nations if
there were such a kind of discussion today so another problem with the udhr again the udhr it's it's a very valuable document and I think it does help sometimes to promote human rights uh where where people are oppressed but it's certainly not a sufficient document
when we think about what are the common values today a another problem with the
universal Declaration of Human Rights is that it doesn't prioritize between rights and provides no guidance in cases
of conflict I mean it's quite a long list of Rights some of them are not very controversial like the idea that nobody
should be held in slavery or servitude I mean uh very few if any governments
today would endorse that or intellectuals for that matter I mean there is still slavery sometimes but
it's done in a kind of secret way and not publicly endorsed or for example there is also the right to life you know
only queer crazy terrorists would object to that I mean those are Universal rights or interests and and and very few
would object to them but the universal Declaration of Human Rights also includes rights that are very
controversial and or at least characteristic of economically developed societies
for example this part of article 24 that everyone has the right to periodic holidays with pay I mean obviously
that's a good idea but in poor countries that have many other priorities you can't expect that to be uh uh endorsed
in a very strong way so there's a need to distinguish between the fundamental rights or let's just say fundamental
needs or interests that are true of people around the world regardless of culture regardless of a level of
Economic Development like the right not to be in slave for example or the right Against torture or the right to life versus other rights
plurality in the emerging World Order and I'm going to first ask the question is how do we find common values um and what are they and I will make some suggestions and then I'll suggest areas where there is legitimate plurality that should be respected by different societies around the world so let me first quit this the
first part here finding common values now when you ask about that the first thing that often comes to mind when you ask people um whether it's especially government people or people working for ngos or academics who work in law and international law for example you ask them what do we mean by common values well they always say that's quite easy there's a response there's an answer to that it's the universal Declaration of Human Rights which was passed by the United Nations in 1948 by the general assembly as a common standard of achievement for All Peoples and Nations so we don't need to discuss anymore about this issue what are common values it's already there it's enshrined and it was endorsed by the United Nations why do we have to talk further well the reason why we have to talk further and not take I'm going to say I'm going to see Universal Declaration of Human Rights it's udhr for short why is that not a sufficient document for thinking about common values well there's several reasons first reason is that it includes rights that are very controversial today you remember this was 1948 shortly after the Allies as they say defeated other countries in World War II and they were very much um the document the universal Declaration of Human Rights very much expresses the dominant values of let's just be frank the Western Powers um that were Victorious uh in World War II if you look at the document today it includes articles that would clearly not be endorsed by for example the Chinese government and many governments around the world for example one article makes it very clear I have it here on on on on the slide it very it's it suggests that the only morally legitimate form of government is one that is selected by the People by means of free and fair elections or secret votes now obviously that's one way of selecting leaders but it's not the only way nor is it the only morally legitimate way it's very controversial to claim that free and fair elections today is the only morally legitimate way of selecting leaders and we can be quite sure that if there were a general assembly today discussing this sort of document that that article would not be endorsed as a kind of common value today or another article basically endorsing the right to property that everyone has the right to own property alone well again in capitalist countries fair enough you know that is a a the right to property is is almost held sacred often
but in countries that adhere to socialist uh economic uh ideals including China it would be very very controversial and we can be sure that if there were deliberations today about what our common values that the right to property would not would be highly controversial and unlikely would not be endorsed today by the United Nations if
there were such a kind of discussion today so another problem with the udhr again the udhr it's it's a very valuable document and I think it does help sometimes to promote human rights uh where where people are oppressed but it's certainly not a sufficient document
when we think about what are the common values today a another problem with the
universal Declaration of Human Rights is that it doesn't prioritize between rights and provides no guidance in cases
of conflict I mean it's quite a long list of Rights some of them are not very controversial like the idea that nobody
should be held in slavery or servitude I mean uh very few if any governments
today would endorse that or intellectuals for that matter I mean there is still slavery sometimes but
it's done in a kind of secret way and not publicly endorsed or for example there is also the right to life you know
only queer crazy terrorists would object to that I mean those are Universal rights or interests and and and very few
would object to them but the universal Declaration of Human Rights also includes rights that are very
controversial and or at least characteristic of economically developed societies
for example this part of article 24 that everyone has the right to periodic holidays with pay I mean obviously
that's a good idea but in poor countries that have many other priorities you can't expect that to be uh uh endorsed
in a very strong way so there's a need to distinguish between the fundamental rights or let's just say fundamental
needs or interests that are true of people around the world regardless of culture regardless of a level of
Economic Development like the right not to be in slave for example or the right Against torture or the right to life versus other rights
这些权利有时取决于文化，有时取决于经济发展水平，而《世界人权宣言》并没有区分那些我们称之为基本重要权利和那些不太重要或更特殊的权利，所以这是另一个问题，为什么《世界人权宣言》不能被视为代表当今共同价值观的文件？我的意思是，一方面，即使其中一些权利在原则层面上得到认可，但有些权利很难实施。嗯，另一个问题是，《世界人权宣言》隐含地肯定了一种过于个人主义的生活方式，你必须再次记住，《世界人权宣言》代表了二战后西方列强的主流观点。嗯，你知道资本主义对私有财产的捍卫，嗯，你拥有对那些寻求个人自主权的个人来说非常重要的价值观和权利。这有点夸张，所以让我收回我刚才说的话，因为有一位中国哲学家，当然，这是在中华人民共和国成立之前，他接近嗯，国民党，但他也是儒家价值观的追随者，据说他影响了《世界人权宣言》的第一条，即人人生而自由，在尊严上一律平等，这一点非常重要，即人人生而自由，拥有理性和良知。中文里“良知”这个词是“良心”，直接来自僧侣的提及。显然，哲学家张志雄在《世界人权宣言》中对良知的认可产生了影响。所以说它完全以西方为中心、个人主义，这有点夸张，因为其中存在着一种令人困惑的因素。我们不得不承认，如果这份宣言中能更多地体现非西方文化、宗教和价值体系，不仅仅是儒家思想，还有例如Ubuntu和世界各地的土著传统，包括我现在在加拿大的原住民，那么这份宣言显然会与现在大不相同，社会和谐的重要性就会更加凸显。我的意思是，在资本主义西方国家，社会和谐是一种价值观。在其他价值体系中，包括儒家思想和乌班图撒哈拉以南非洲的伦理体系，社会和谐显然有时被视为所有价值观之母，或者说环境保护。我指的是土著传统。如果土著传统和原住民的代表参与审议，就会更加强调环境保护作为一项基本人类价值观和共同价值观。不幸的是，《世界人权宣言》主要是二战后西方战胜国的产物。所以，这些价值观是缺乏的，我们姑且称之为非西方价值观。如果你看看世界人口，就会发现，这些价值观往往占据主导地位。那么，我们该怎么做呢？接下来该如何找到《世界人权宣言》中可能缺乏的共同价值观呢？我们可以做很多事情，也已经做了很多事情。其中之一就是让我们与不同伦理和宗教传统的领导人和代表开启一场现代的、新的对话。来自世界各地的思想家，比如，杜明教授，他曾在哈佛大学任教，现在在北京大学任教。他参与过许多我们可以称之为文明对话的活动，其中包括：我们的目标是开展一场比普遍人权教育更具包容性的对话，包括那些并非西方资本主义国家特征或主导的传统的参与者。嗯，这已经取得了一些成果。但问题是，对话越包容，参与者的数量就越多，参与者的多样性也就越强。事实证明，除了陈词滥调之外，很难达成共识。例如，我参与过这些对话。大约15到20年前，这种对话更为常见，因为人们仍然希望我们能够取得一些有意义的成果。但坦率地说，现在的情况更加悲观，不仅仅是因为地缘政治，这使得在各方之间进行理性且知情的辩论变得更加困难。比如说中国和
美国，但也仅仅因为很难就具有影响力、能够塑造政治现实的有意义的全球价值观达成一致，所以很多抽象的概念，你知道，我们都应该努力做好事，避免做坏事，
但它们太抽象了，以至于它们没有能力塑造政治现实。
美国，但也仅仅因为很难就具有影响力、能够塑造政治现实的有意义的全球价值观达成一致，所以很多抽象的概念，你知道，我们都应该努力做好事，避免做坏事，
但它们太抽象了，以至于它们没有能力塑造政治现实。
that are quite controversial in particular and depend upon sometimes culture and sometimes level of Economic Development and the universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't distinguish between let's call them basic important rights and those that are less important or let's say more particular so that's another problem why um the universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot be seen as a document that represents common values today I mean for one thing even if it even if some of these are endorsed at the level of principle some of them are difficult to implement um okay what's another problem another problem is that the udhr implicitly affirms an overly individualistic way of life and you have to remember again that the udhr represents pretty much the dominant outlooks of Western Powers after World War II um so you have you know capitalist defense of private property um and you have values and rights that are very important for individuals that seek individual autonomy Above All Else now that's a bit of an exaggeration so let me take back a little bit what I just said because there was one Chinese philosopher of course this is before the establishment of the People's Republic of China he was close to the uh kmt but he was also um a kind of adherent of Confucian values and he is said to have influenced the very first article of the universal declaration that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and this is very important Point endowed with reason and conscience and the word conscience in Chinese is Liang Shin which comes straight from mentions from monks and apparently PC Chang the philosopher was influential in getting that endorsed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so it's an exaggeration to say that it's kind of totally West Centric and individualistic um because there is this kind of confusion element that said admittedly we have to say that if the there had been much greater representation of non Western cultures and religions and value systems not just Confucianism but for example Ubuntu and Indigenous Traditions from around the world including First Nations where I am now in Canada um obviously the document would have looked very different than what it is now there would have been much more sense on the importance of social harmony I mean social harmony as a value in in capitalist Western countries it's not regarded as as so important and fundamental but in other value systems including Confucianism and Ubuntu sub-Saharan African ethical system clearly social harmony is sometimes reviewed as the mother of all values or the protection for the environment I mean obviously of indigenous Traditions had been if representatives of indigenous traditions and First Nations had been involved in deliberations there would have been much more emphasis on protection for the environment as a fundamental human value as a common value unfortunately because again the
udhr is predominantly a product of the Victorious Western Powers after World War II so um there is these this these kind of values are lacking let's call them so
for lack of a better term a non-western values which often are quite dominant if you look at the world's population so what do we do then how do we move from here how do we find common values that are lacking arguably in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights well there's lots of things we can do and lots of things that have been done one is to let's start a modern a new dialogue with leaders and representatives of diverse ethical and religious Traditions from around the world so we have thinkers for example uh Professor tueming who used to be at Harvard now he's at Peking University beta in China he's been part of many of these we can call him civilizational dialogues and and these include so that the idea is to have a more inclusive dialogue than was the case in the Universal education of Human Rights including participants of again Traditions that are not characteristic or dominant of Western capitalist countries um and this has led to some results the problem though is that the more inclusive the dialogue the greater the
number of participants and the greater the diversity of participants it turns out it's very hard to achieve consensus
on anything other than platitudes like one example I I've been part of these
dialogue they're much more common about 15 20 years ago because there was still hope that we could achieve something
meaningful but now frankly there's much more there's a bit more pessimism not just because of the geopolitics which
makes it more much more difficult to have you know rational and informed debate between let's say China and the
us but also just because it's hard to set to agree upon meaningful Global values that can have bite and that could
shape political reality so many of the abstractions are you know we should all strive to be good and avoid doing bad
but they're so abstract that they do not have the power to shape political realities w
udhr is predominantly a product of the Victorious Western Powers after World War II so um there is these this these kind of values are lacking let's call them so
for lack of a better term a non-western values which often are quite dominant if you look at the world's population so what do we do then how do we move from here how do we find common values that are lacking arguably in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights well there's lots of things we can do and lots of things that have been done one is to let's start a modern a new dialogue with leaders and representatives of diverse ethical and religious Traditions from around the world so we have thinkers for example uh Professor tueming who used to be at Harvard now he's at Peking University beta in China he's been part of many of these we can call him civilizational dialogues and and these include so that the idea is to have a more inclusive dialogue than was the case in the Universal education of Human Rights including participants of again Traditions that are not characteristic or dominant of Western capitalist countries um and this has led to some results the problem though is that the more inclusive the dialogue the greater the
number of participants and the greater the diversity of participants it turns out it's very hard to achieve consensus
on anything other than platitudes like one example I I've been part of these
dialogue they're much more common about 15 20 years ago because there was still hope that we could achieve something
meaningful but now frankly there's much more there's a bit more pessimism not just because of the geopolitics which
makes it more much more difficult to have you know rational and informed debate between let's say China and the
us but also just because it's hard to set to agree upon meaningful Global values that can have bite and that could
shape political reality so many of the abstractions are you know we should all strive to be good and avoid doing bad
but they're so abstract that they do not have the power to shape political realities w
这通常涉及轮廓问题，我们如何分配稀缺资源，以及我们应该优先考虑哪些方面，所以这是一个有点问题，那么我们该怎么做呢？这些跨文明对话并没有取得很大成功，我很遗憾地告诉大家，我们该怎么做呢？另一个建议是，在国家层面，有很多这样的全球大会，不，不好意思，例如在国家层面，由随机选出的公民组成的国家大会，讨论问题，并由专家组成，然后提出如何推进的想法，这些想法在国家层面真正具有代表性。问题是，如果我们在全球层面举行这些大会，想象一下，由于参与者如此多样化，达成某种共识的难度，而且参与者不太可能克服困扰战略一的那些问题。换句话说，除了陈词滥调和抽象概念之外，很难达成共识，因为这些陈词滥调和抽象概念没有力量塑造全球现实。也许值得一试，但目前还没有。已经尝试过了，嗯，但坦白说，很难
非常乐观，但我仍然认为这是一个值得尝试的策略，那么还有其他什么可能性呢？嗯，还有另一种可能性，嗯，你有政治理论，
全球视野更加敏感，你知道，当我刚开始在蒙特利尔麦吉尔大学读本科时学习政治理论时，我们有一些课程，有时被称为从柏拉图到北约，对我们来说，政治理论意味着我们
从柏拉图开始学习古希腊人，然后我们一路前进，你知道，一路走来，呃，
然后，然后，最后把北约的角色当作一个热门笑话。关键在于，这是一个完全以西方为中心的课程，西方的政治理论家几乎不认为儒家、印度教、伊斯兰教或乌班图等非西方传统具有道德价值。但今天，如果你有见识广博的政治理论家，他们真正尝试认真地与非西方传统互动，并思考哪些价值观是普世的，情况就会越来越不同。哪些不是，哪些是特定于社会的。对我来说，一位非常有启发性的思想家是迈克尔·沃尔泽，嗯，他是一位心胸开阔的美国人，对文化差异非常敏感。他对所谓的“厚人权”和“薄人权”做出了非常重要的区分。他认为，只有这些“薄人权”——有时我们会使用反对谋杀、奴役、酷刑和种族灭绝的消极权利的语言——才应该被视为普遍的。没有一个理智的政府或坦率地说理智的知识分子会反对这些……嗯，你又说了疯狂的理论……恐怖分子可能会这样做……我正要说疯狂的理论家……嗯，但总的来说，我们可以在这些反对谋杀、奴役和酷刑的消极人权之间达成共识。当然，这些权利在实践中受到了侵犯，但关键在于，在公共话语层面，这些权利得到了认可，这是为了揭示现实与理想之间的差距。但在理想层面，世界各地的知情人士对这些权利的价值并没有真正的争议。权利，但当谈到其他权利时，迈克尔·沃尔特又称它们为“厚米”，它们并非基本人权。你知道，例子可能包括私有财产权，或者选举领导人的方式。那么，我们应该允许不同文化之间存在差异，我们应该允许更多、更合理的差异。我的意思是，有时候，它们并不仅仅是合理的差异。你知道，如果一个政府是通过军事政变，或者比如说种族灭绝来掌权的，那么显然这并不更合理。但如果一个政府保护基本人权，比如免遭谋杀、奴役和酷刑的权利，并且他们是通过竞争性选举产生的，那么我们应该尊重它，将其视为一种道德上合理的差异。我认为这是一个很有前途的方法，但它仍然有点过于以西方为中心，因为存在对负面人权的普查，认为它们真正具有普遍性。但如果你看看西方以外的国家，问问政府、大多数知识分子和政治改革者，对你来说，什么是普世权利，什么才是真正最重要的权利。我们只说人类的利益或需求，人们经常说，不贫穷是正确的，或者保护人们免于饥饿的权利，或者保护人们或提供体面的医疗保健和住房的权利，这些都是更基本、更普遍的权利，所以它不仅仅是反对酷刑、奴役和谋杀的消极权利，我们也可以称它们为积极权利，比如政府，所以政府有积极的义务保护人们免于饥饿，提供体面的医疗保健，以及如何和最低限度的住房
非常乐观，但我仍然认为这是一个值得尝试的策略，那么还有其他什么可能性呢？嗯，还有另一种可能性，嗯，你有政治理论，
全球视野更加敏感，你知道，当我刚开始在蒙特利尔麦吉尔大学读本科时学习政治理论时，我们有一些课程，有时被称为从柏拉图到北约，对我们来说，政治理论意味着我们
从柏拉图开始学习古希腊人，然后我们一路前进，你知道，一路走来，呃，
然后，然后，最后把北约的角色当作一个热门笑话。关键在于，这是一个完全以西方为中心的课程，西方的政治理论家几乎不认为儒家、印度教、伊斯兰教或乌班图等非西方传统具有道德价值。但今天，如果你有见识广博的政治理论家，他们真正尝试认真地与非西方传统互动，并思考哪些价值观是普世的，情况就会越来越不同。哪些不是，哪些是特定于社会的。对我来说，一位非常有启发性的思想家是迈克尔·沃尔泽，嗯，他是一位心胸开阔的美国人，对文化差异非常敏感。他对所谓的“厚人权”和“薄人权”做出了非常重要的区分。他认为，只有这些“薄人权”——有时我们会使用反对谋杀、奴役、酷刑和种族灭绝的消极权利的语言——才应该被视为普遍的。没有一个理智的政府或坦率地说理智的知识分子会反对这些……嗯，你又说了疯狂的理论……恐怖分子可能会这样做……我正要说疯狂的理论家……嗯，但总的来说，我们可以在这些反对谋杀、奴役和酷刑的消极人权之间达成共识。当然，这些权利在实践中受到了侵犯，但关键在于，在公共话语层面，这些权利得到了认可，这是为了揭示现实与理想之间的差距。但在理想层面，世界各地的知情人士对这些权利的价值并没有真正的争议。权利，但当谈到其他权利时，迈克尔·沃尔特又称它们为“厚米”，它们并非基本人权。你知道，例子可能包括私有财产权，或者选举领导人的方式。那么，我们应该允许不同文化之间存在差异，我们应该允许更多、更合理的差异。我的意思是，有时候，它们并不仅仅是合理的差异。你知道，如果一个政府是通过军事政变，或者比如说种族灭绝来掌权的，那么显然这并不更合理。但如果一个政府保护基本人权，比如免遭谋杀、奴役和酷刑的权利，并且他们是通过竞争性选举产生的，那么我们应该尊重它，将其视为一种道德上合理的差异。我认为这是一个很有前途的方法，但它仍然有点过于以西方为中心，因为存在对负面人权的普查，认为它们真正具有普遍性。但如果你看看西方以外的国家，问问政府、大多数知识分子和政治改革者，对你来说，什么是普世权利，什么才是真正最重要的权利。我们只说人类的利益或需求，人们经常说，不贫穷是正确的，或者保护人们免于饥饿的权利，或者保护人们或提供体面的医疗保健和住房的权利，这些都是更基本、更普遍的权利，所以它不仅仅是反对酷刑、奴役和谋杀的消极权利，我们也可以称它们为积极权利，比如政府，所以政府有积极的义务保护人们免于饥饿，提供体面的医疗保健，以及如何和最低限度的住房
hich often involve contoursal
issues and how do we distribute scarce resources and and where do we prioritize so this is a bit of a problem so what do
we do these these inter-civilizational dialogues have not been very successful I regret to report what do we do then
well another proposal and this is at the national level you have a lot of these Global assemblies no
sorry National Assemblies of randomly selected citizens in in countries for example that PL that discuss issues and
formed by experts then come up with ideas for how to move forward and those are truly representative at the level of
the nation the problem is that if we do these assemblies at the global level just imagine
the difficulty again of achieving a kind of consensus given that there would be so many diverse participants and and the
participants are unlikely to overcome problems that have played that have plagued strategy one in other words it's
going to be very hard to achieve consensus on anything other than platitudes and abstractions that do not
have the power to shape Global realities maybe it's worth trying that hasn't been
tried yet actually um but um frankly it's hard to be very
optimistic though I would still think it's a it's a strategy worth trying so what are some other possibilities
well here's another possibility well you have political theories of
global outlooks much more sensitive you know when I first started learning political Theory as an undergraduate at
McGill University in Montreal we had courses that are sometimes called Plato to Nato for us political Theory meant we
learned about the ancient Greeks from from Plato and then we move forward you know all the way through a mill uh and
and and and ending up with roles or NATO as a kind of hot joke the point is that it was a completely West Centric curriculum and political theorists in the west hardly viewed non-western Traditions such as Confucianism or Hinduism or Islam or Ubuntu and so on as morally valuable so but today it's a different story more and more if you have informed political theorists who who really try to seriously engage with non-western traditions and think about which values are Universal and which ones are not which ones are particular to put to to societies and one very inspiring thinker to me is Michael waltzer um and he's a he's American extremely broad-minded and sensitive to cultural difference and and he has he makes a very important distinction between what he calls thick and thin human rights and he argues that only these thin human rights sometimes we use the language of negative rights against murder slavery
and torture and genocide should be viewed as universal no sane government or frankly sane intellectual would object to those um again you have crazy Theory uh terrorists who might do so I was about to say crazy theorists maybe also um but generally speaking we can achieve consensus among these negative uh human
rights against murder slavery and torture of course they're done these rights are violated in practice but the
point is that at the level of public discourse uh they're endorsed and it's a matter of exposing the gap between the reality and the ideal but at the level of Ideal there's really no dispute among informed people from around the world on the value of these rights but when it comes to other rights again Michael Walter calls them thick rice that are not these basic human rights you know examples might include the right to private property um or ways of selecting leaders um then we should allow for variation from a culture to culture we should allow for more more legitimate variation I mean sometimes they're not more there's not more than legitimate variation you know if uh let's say a government assumes powered by military coup or uh or by let's say genocide
um uh then obviously that's not more legitimate but if a government protects basic human rights like rights against murder slavery and torture and so on and they're chosen by means of then competitive elections then we should respect that as a as a kind of morally legitimate variation now I think that's a promising approach but again it's a little still too West Centric in the sense that there's a census on negative human rights as truly Universal but again if you look outside the west and you ask governments and and most intellectuals and political reformers what are the universal rights for you what are the truly most important rights or let's just say human interests or needs and very often people say well it's right not to be poor or rights to protect people from starvation or protect people or give provide decent Health Care and housing these are are much more fundamental and Universal so it's not just a negative rights Against torture and slavery and murder but also we can call them positive rights such as the government so the governments have a positive obligation to protect people from starvation and to provide decent health care and how and and minimal housi
issues and how do we distribute scarce resources and and where do we prioritize so this is a bit of a problem so what do
we do these these inter-civilizational dialogues have not been very successful I regret to report what do we do then
well another proposal and this is at the national level you have a lot of these Global assemblies no
sorry National Assemblies of randomly selected citizens in in countries for example that PL that discuss issues and
formed by experts then come up with ideas for how to move forward and those are truly representative at the level of
the nation the problem is that if we do these assemblies at the global level just imagine
the difficulty again of achieving a kind of consensus given that there would be so many diverse participants and and the
participants are unlikely to overcome problems that have played that have plagued strategy one in other words it's
going to be very hard to achieve consensus on anything other than platitudes and abstractions that do not
have the power to shape Global realities maybe it's worth trying that hasn't been
tried yet actually um but um frankly it's hard to be very
optimistic though I would still think it's a it's a strategy worth trying so what are some other possibilities
well here's another possibility well you have political theories of
global outlooks much more sensitive you know when I first started learning political Theory as an undergraduate at
McGill University in Montreal we had courses that are sometimes called Plato to Nato for us political Theory meant we
learned about the ancient Greeks from from Plato and then we move forward you know all the way through a mill uh and
and and and ending up with roles or NATO as a kind of hot joke the point is that it was a completely West Centric curriculum and political theorists in the west hardly viewed non-western Traditions such as Confucianism or Hinduism or Islam or Ubuntu and so on as morally valuable so but today it's a different story more and more if you have informed political theorists who who really try to seriously engage with non-western traditions and think about which values are Universal and which ones are not which ones are particular to put to to societies and one very inspiring thinker to me is Michael waltzer um and he's a he's American extremely broad-minded and sensitive to cultural difference and and he has he makes a very important distinction between what he calls thick and thin human rights and he argues that only these thin human rights sometimes we use the language of negative rights against murder slavery
and torture and genocide should be viewed as universal no sane government or frankly sane intellectual would object to those um again you have crazy Theory uh terrorists who might do so I was about to say crazy theorists maybe also um but generally speaking we can achieve consensus among these negative uh human
rights against murder slavery and torture of course they're done these rights are violated in practice but the
point is that at the level of public discourse uh they're endorsed and it's a matter of exposing the gap between the reality and the ideal but at the level of Ideal there's really no dispute among informed people from around the world on the value of these rights but when it comes to other rights again Michael Walter calls them thick rice that are not these basic human rights you know examples might include the right to private property um or ways of selecting leaders um then we should allow for variation from a culture to culture we should allow for more more legitimate variation I mean sometimes they're not more there's not more than legitimate variation you know if uh let's say a government assumes powered by military coup or uh or by let's say genocide
um uh then obviously that's not more legitimate but if a government protects basic human rights like rights against murder slavery and torture and so on and they're chosen by means of then competitive elections then we should respect that as a as a kind of morally legitimate variation now I think that's a promising approach but again it's a little still too West Centric in the sense that there's a census on negative human rights as truly Universal but again if you look outside the west and you ask governments and and most intellectuals and political reformers what are the universal rights for you what are the truly most important rights or let's just say human interests or needs and very often people say well it's right not to be poor or rights to protect people from starvation or protect people or give provide decent Health Care and housing these are are much more fundamental and Universal so it's not just a negative rights Against torture and slavery and murder but also we can call them positive rights such as the government so the governments have a positive obligation to protect people from starvation and to provide decent health care and how and and minimal housi
这些也是普遍权利，我们需要更多对话来思考什么是共同的
价值观，但我们也必须问，你知道，即使是稻米语言本身，有时也会被视为有点西方中心主义。我的意思是，有些传统并不使用稻米语言来表达人类的基本需求或利益，我们不应该局限于人权语言，将其作为谈论共同价值观的唯一合法限制语言。我们应该允许使用不同的词汇，即使实质上可能没有太大的
差异。例如，当我们谈论社会和谐的需要或保护自然环境权利时，语言可能不一定是理解这些基本共同价值观的最佳语言。所以，这
更像是一种直觉，因为它仍然是一个持续的争论，但如果我们思考超越《世界人权宣言》的不同策略，思考哪些价值观才是真正的普世价值，那么，哪些价值观是所有人类共同拥有的，无论文化背景如何，无论经济发展水平如何，我们很可能会确定一个最简清单。说到人权，虽然它并不总是用人权的语言来表达，包括反对谋杀、奴役、酷刑和种族灭绝的消极权利，以及积极权利，例如政府有义务满足人们的基本物质需求，保护他们免于饥饿，获得体面的医疗保健，以及保护自然环境。我的意思是，现在越来越明显了，我的意思是，在制定《世界人权宣言》时，气候变化并不是一个问题，但现在显然它已成为一种共同价值观，应该引起世界各地人民的共鸣，无论其文化或经济发展水平如何。所以这基本上就是，如果我们思考共同价值观是什么，我认为我们应该转向哪里。我们并不是说我们需要拒绝基督教人权的体系，而是我们当然需要在此基础上发展，而不是将其视为思考共同价值观的充分文件。我的意思是，它是时代的产物，也许现在是时候转向其他更具包容性的东西了。非西方价值体系，嗯，这样我们才能就共同价值观达成一个
真正包容和普遍的观点。现在我想进入本次演讲的第二部分。我不会花太多时间，但我认为今天会议有两个重要主题。第一部分是
共同价值观是什么？第二部分是我们需要拒绝、需要尊重的多元化是什么？我再次强调，我确实认为
问题更多地存在于西方而非非西方。我的意思是，呃，无论是美国，还是其他西方国家，这都是一个更深层次的问题。你们也有类似的观点，认为我们的政治制度是最好的，
最终应该为世界其他国家树立榜样。嗯，我们指的是一种政治制度，一种民主的政治制度，政治领导人是通过
一人一票选出的，这种观点也影响着整个宇宙。《世界人权宣言》人权
嗯，这是一个相对较新的观点，直到二战后才成为
一种主流观点，你知道，19世纪英国自由主义者约翰斯顿·密尔，我的意思是，他说，哦不，
并非每个人都拥有同等的能力做出符合道德的政治判断，我们应该给予受过教育的人额外的
他可以这样说，而不会被视为疯子，但在今天的西方，如果你主张一人一观点一票的替代方案，你就会被视为独裁的捍卫者，这很糟糕，现在它在道德上再次不合法了。
让我们把自己置于西方之外，当然，我在中国工作了很多年，所以我不得不问
你知道，主导中国政治体系的主导政治理想是什么吗？嗯，我们可以称之为
政治贤能政治，中文里是“贤能”，这种观点认为，
官员应该基于卓越的能力进行选拔和提拔，
而美德意味着愿意为人民服务，能力意味着那种展现出来的能力。为人民服务
公职人员要经过几十年的选拔和提拔过程。呃，现在的选拔、提拔不是一个完美的制度，它非常不完善，就像西方式的民主一样。
民主非常不完善，你知道在实践中，通常不是一人一票，而是一美元一票。
在中国，民主非常不完善，经常有腐败的领导人被选拔出来，而且没有经过应有的筛选。
所以两种制度都有优点，也都有缺点。你知道，一人一票制的优点是什么。
价值观，但我们也必须问，你知道，即使是稻米语言本身，有时也会被视为有点西方中心主义。我的意思是，有些传统并不使用稻米语言来表达人类的基本需求或利益，我们不应该局限于人权语言，将其作为谈论共同价值观的唯一合法限制语言。我们应该允许使用不同的词汇，即使实质上可能没有太大的
差异。例如，当我们谈论社会和谐的需要或保护自然环境权利时，语言可能不一定是理解这些基本共同价值观的最佳语言。所以，这
更像是一种直觉，因为它仍然是一个持续的争论，但如果我们思考超越《世界人权宣言》的不同策略，思考哪些价值观才是真正的普世价值，那么，哪些价值观是所有人类共同拥有的，无论文化背景如何，无论经济发展水平如何，我们很可能会确定一个最简清单。说到人权，虽然它并不总是用人权的语言来表达，包括反对谋杀、奴役、酷刑和种族灭绝的消极权利，以及积极权利，例如政府有义务满足人们的基本物质需求，保护他们免于饥饿，获得体面的医疗保健，以及保护自然环境。我的意思是，现在越来越明显了，我的意思是，在制定《世界人权宣言》时，气候变化并不是一个问题，但现在显然它已成为一种共同价值观，应该引起世界各地人民的共鸣，无论其文化或经济发展水平如何。所以这基本上就是，如果我们思考共同价值观是什么，我认为我们应该转向哪里。我们并不是说我们需要拒绝基督教人权的体系，而是我们当然需要在此基础上发展，而不是将其视为思考共同价值观的充分文件。我的意思是，它是时代的产物，也许现在是时候转向其他更具包容性的东西了。非西方价值体系，嗯，这样我们才能就共同价值观达成一个
真正包容和普遍的观点。现在我想进入本次演讲的第二部分。我不会花太多时间，但我认为今天会议有两个重要主题。第一部分是
共同价值观是什么？第二部分是我们需要拒绝、需要尊重的多元化是什么？我再次强调，我确实认为
问题更多地存在于西方而非非西方。我的意思是，呃，无论是美国，还是其他西方国家，这都是一个更深层次的问题。你们也有类似的观点，认为我们的政治制度是最好的，
最终应该为世界其他国家树立榜样。嗯，我们指的是一种政治制度，一种民主的政治制度，政治领导人是通过
一人一票选出的，这种观点也影响着整个宇宙。《世界人权宣言》人权
嗯，这是一个相对较新的观点，直到二战后才成为
一种主流观点，你知道，19世纪英国自由主义者约翰斯顿·密尔，我的意思是，他说，哦不，
并非每个人都拥有同等的能力做出符合道德的政治判断，我们应该给予受过教育的人额外的
他可以这样说，而不会被视为疯子，但在今天的西方，如果你主张一人一观点一票的替代方案，你就会被视为独裁的捍卫者，这很糟糕，现在它在道德上再次不合法了。
让我们把自己置于西方之外，当然，我在中国工作了很多年，所以我不得不问
你知道，主导中国政治体系的主导政治理想是什么吗？嗯，我们可以称之为
政治贤能政治，中文里是“贤能”，这种观点认为，
官员应该基于卓越的能力进行选拔和提拔，
而美德意味着愿意为人民服务，能力意味着那种展现出来的能力。为人民服务
公职人员要经过几十年的选拔和提拔过程。呃，现在的选拔、提拔不是一个完美的制度，它非常不完善，就像西方式的民主一样。
民主非常不完善，你知道在实践中，通常不是一人一票，而是一美元一票。
在中国，民主非常不完善，经常有腐败的领导人被选拔出来，而且没有经过应有的筛选。
所以两种制度都有优点，也都有缺点。你知道，一人一票制的优点是什么。
ng these are also Universal rights again we need much more dialogue uh to to think about what are the common
values but we also have to ask you know even the language of rice itself sometimes can be seen as a bit West Centric I mean some traditions don't use a language of rice to express what's fundamental about human needs or
interests and we shouldn't necessarily be stuck on the language of human rights as the only legit limit language of
talking about common values we should allow for different vocabulary even if in substance there might not be much
difference so for example when we talk about the need for social harmony or protection of natural environment rights
language might not be necessarily the best language to make sense of those fundamental common values so again this
is more of an intuition because it's still an ongoing debate but if we think about different strategies for moving
beyond the universal Declaration of Human Rights and for thinking about which values are truly Universal what
are the common values that are shared by All Humans regardless of culture regardless of levels of economic
development quite likely we're going to settle Upon A minimal list we can say of
Human Rights although it won't always be expressed in this language of Human Rights including negative rights against
murder slavery torture and genocide and positive rights such as the obligation
of governments to provide for basic material needs protecting people from
starvation from decent and decent health care and also to protect the natural
environment I mean more and more it's so obvious now I mean climate change wasn't an issue when the universal Declaration
of Human Rights is being formulated but obviously now it's a common uh value
that should resonate with people around the world regardless of culture um or or
level of Economic Development so this is basically
um where where I think we would move uh if we're thinking about what are the common values
um and we doesn't mean we need to reject the universe of that Christian human rights but certainly we need to build on
it and not regard as a sufficient document for thinking about common values I mean it was a it was a product
of its time and perhaps now it's time to move on to something else that is much
much more inclusive of non-western value systems um so that we can arrive at a
truly inclusive and universal view of what are the common values now I want to move on to the second part
of of this talk and I'm going to I won't spend too much time on it but there's
two parts here in this I think two important themes in our conference today and the first again again is what are
the common values but what are the second part is what is the plurality that we need to reject that we need to
respect and again this is I really do think that
the problem here is lies much more in the west than in the non-west I mean uh
whether it's the it's prob probably it's more a deeper problem in the United States but in other Western countries
you have a similar view that our political system is the best
and ultimately one that should set the model for the rest of the world
um and what do we mean by that we mean a political system a democratic political system where political leaders are
selected by means of one person one vote again that view also informs the universe Universal Declaration of Human
Rights um it's a relatively new uh view it's only in post-world War II that it became
a kind of dominant view you know the 19th century the British liberal Johnston Mill I mean he he said oh no
not everybody has equal capacity to make morally informed political judgment we should give extra both to educated
people he could make that claim and not be viewed as crazy but in the west today if you argue for alternatives to one
person one view one vote you're viewed as a defender of autocracy which is bad it's morally illegitimate now again
let's Place ourselves outside the west and course I've been working in China for many years so to me I have to ask
you know what is the dominant political ideal that informs the Chinese political system well it's we can call it
political meritocracy in Chinese it's shenang and this is the view that public
officials are supposed to be selected and promoted based on Superior ability
and virtue virtue means a willingness to serve the people ability means that kind of demonstrated ability to serve the
people and public officials are putting out put on through a decades-long process to select and promote uh to
select to be selected and be promoted now it's not a perfect system it's highly imperfect just as western style
democracy is highly imperfect you know in practice often it's not one person one vote it's one dollar one vote in the
in China highly imperfect you often have corrupt leaders who are selected and who are not filtered as they should be and
both so both systems have advantages and the end disadvantages you know it's the advantages of what one person vote i
values but we also have to ask you know even the language of rice itself sometimes can be seen as a bit West Centric I mean some traditions don't use a language of rice to express what's fundamental about human needs or
interests and we shouldn't necessarily be stuck on the language of human rights as the only legit limit language of
talking about common values we should allow for different vocabulary even if in substance there might not be much
difference so for example when we talk about the need for social harmony or protection of natural environment rights
language might not be necessarily the best language to make sense of those fundamental common values so again this
is more of an intuition because it's still an ongoing debate but if we think about different strategies for moving
beyond the universal Declaration of Human Rights and for thinking about which values are truly Universal what
are the common values that are shared by All Humans regardless of culture regardless of levels of economic
development quite likely we're going to settle Upon A minimal list we can say of
Human Rights although it won't always be expressed in this language of Human Rights including negative rights against
murder slavery torture and genocide and positive rights such as the obligation
of governments to provide for basic material needs protecting people from
starvation from decent and decent health care and also to protect the natural
environment I mean more and more it's so obvious now I mean climate change wasn't an issue when the universal Declaration
of Human Rights is being formulated but obviously now it's a common uh value
that should resonate with people around the world regardless of culture um or or
level of Economic Development so this is basically
um where where I think we would move uh if we're thinking about what are the common values
um and we doesn't mean we need to reject the universe of that Christian human rights but certainly we need to build on
it and not regard as a sufficient document for thinking about common values I mean it was a it was a product
of its time and perhaps now it's time to move on to something else that is much
much more inclusive of non-western value systems um so that we can arrive at a
truly inclusive and universal view of what are the common values now I want to move on to the second part
of of this talk and I'm going to I won't spend too much time on it but there's
two parts here in this I think two important themes in our conference today and the first again again is what are
the common values but what are the second part is what is the plurality that we need to reject that we need to
respect and again this is I really do think that
the problem here is lies much more in the west than in the non-west I mean uh
whether it's the it's prob probably it's more a deeper problem in the United States but in other Western countries
you have a similar view that our political system is the best
and ultimately one that should set the model for the rest of the world
um and what do we mean by that we mean a political system a democratic political system where political leaders are
selected by means of one person one vote again that view also informs the universe Universal Declaration of Human
Rights um it's a relatively new uh view it's only in post-world War II that it became
a kind of dominant view you know the 19th century the British liberal Johnston Mill I mean he he said oh no
not everybody has equal capacity to make morally informed political judgment we should give extra both to educated
people he could make that claim and not be viewed as crazy but in the west today if you argue for alternatives to one
person one view one vote you're viewed as a defender of autocracy which is bad it's morally illegitimate now again
let's Place ourselves outside the west and course I've been working in China for many years so to me I have to ask
you know what is the dominant political ideal that informs the Chinese political system well it's we can call it
political meritocracy in Chinese it's shenang and this is the view that public
officials are supposed to be selected and promoted based on Superior ability
and virtue virtue means a willingness to serve the people ability means that kind of demonstrated ability to serve the
people and public officials are putting out put on through a decades-long process to select and promote uh to
select to be selected and be promoted now it's not a perfect system it's highly imperfect just as western style
democracy is highly imperfect you know in practice often it's not one person one vote it's one dollar one vote in the
in China highly imperfect you often have corrupt leaders who are selected and who are not filtered as they should be and
both so both systems have advantages and the end disadvantages you know it's the advantages of what one person vote i
或许政治合法性问题不那么严重，但多边政治体制的弊端和优势在于，领导人可以进行长远规划，而不必担心被取代等等。
嗯，但关键在于，两种政治体制都已经有了指导实践的政治理想，它们
需要根据各自的政治理想进行改进。所以，是的，我的意思是，我们可以
以西式选举作为改进西方的标准，也可以以中国式政治民主作为改进中国的标准。我们始终认识到，理想与现实之间存在巨大差距，
我们应该努力缩小这一差距。但问题是，我们应该使用什么标准？这违背了普遍的《人权宣言》，也违背了在西方国家占主导地位且教条的观点。
我们应该允许多元化的方式来选拔和提拔公职人员。这既取决于一个国家的规模，也取决于一个国家的主导政治文化，还取决于经济发展水平，这些都是重要的问题。
我们应该提供多元化的选拔方式。选拔领导人，而不是武断地断言只有一种
选拔领导人的方式，这在中国不是问题。我认为大多数
中国知识分子，至少以我的经验来看，都承认应该有多种选拔领导人的方式。你知道，我还没听到有人说中国任何形式的一夫多妻制
应该被盲目地输出到其他国家，无论文化背景如何等等。但在西方，这仍然是一个问题，人们仍然认为
所谓的，我不会说所谓的西式选举是唯一更合法的选拔领导人的方式，我们应该允许合法的多样性。嘿，还有哪个领域如此重视多元化？
我之所以提出这一点，是因为一方面，这很明显；另一方面，这又不明显，因为
通常情况下，多元化的形式并不受到尊重。如果你读过《经济学人》
、《金融时报》或《华尔街日报》，你就会发现
在组织经济生活的方式上，还有另一个问题。一般来说，有一种观点认为，只有一种
道德上合法的经济组织方式，那就是资本主义的生活方式，呃，资本主义的
经济形式，在这种经济形式下，财产权受到尊重，并被视为基本权利。好吧，也许在某些国家是这样，但其他国家，包括中国，都坚定地致力于社会主义
理想，而当时的首要任务是减轻贫困。现在，这又回到了
社会主义思想，不仅仅是社会主义者。我的意思是，自古以来就存在着困惑，包括孔子。你知道，孔扎本人也说过，政府的首要任务应该是充分满足人民的基本物质需求，然后才能教育他们。乔，你知道，这种观点在中国有着悠久的历史。社会主义理想之所以在中国占据主导地位，并非偶然，因为他们可以借鉴早期的山谷
体系，该体系优先考虑减轻贫困。高于
其他价值观，包括尊重私有财产的必要性。嗯，中国宪法也明确规定了共产主义是最终目标。这是什么意思？嗯，如果你是美国人，这听起来可能不太好，但共产主义理想是一个非常美好的理想。共产主义理想是先进的机器完成所有必要的劳动，这样人们就不用再做脏活累活了。
每个人都有平等的机会发展他们的创造性才能，而不必再受枯燥乏味的劳动的束缚。这又是一个美好的想法。如果实现这一目标需要限制私有财产，那么那些致力于社会主义的国家就会这样做。我的意思是，
这并不是说我们国家应该盲目地剥夺人们的财产，而是
有时，当涉及到强有力的义务来减轻贫困时，
例如，土地分配可能是必要的，或者最终要发展到一个
先进的共产主义或先进的机器完成所有必要的劳动的状态，那么也许就或许应该对私有财产进行一些
合法的限制，我们应该允许更合法的
变化。我怀疑就目前情况而言，共产主义能否成为全球理想，但它
肯定可以成为一种指导中国政治体系的理想，其他国家也必须
承认并接受这一点，并认识到在如何组织经济生活方面存在着多元的思维方式。
好吧，让我再举最后一个例子，这个例子更多地来自
那些通常将伊斯兰教作为一种政治形式的国家。现在，再次强调，《世界人权宣言》（UDHR）强烈地构成了自由。
嗯，但关键在于，两种政治体制都已经有了指导实践的政治理想，它们
需要根据各自的政治理想进行改进。所以，是的，我的意思是，我们可以
以西式选举作为改进西方的标准，也可以以中国式政治民主作为改进中国的标准。我们始终认识到，理想与现实之间存在巨大差距，
我们应该努力缩小这一差距。但问题是，我们应该使用什么标准？这违背了普遍的《人权宣言》，也违背了在西方国家占主导地位且教条的观点。
我们应该允许多元化的方式来选拔和提拔公职人员。这既取决于一个国家的规模，也取决于一个国家的主导政治文化，还取决于经济发展水平，这些都是重要的问题。
我们应该提供多元化的选拔方式。选拔领导人，而不是武断地断言只有一种
选拔领导人的方式，这在中国不是问题。我认为大多数
中国知识分子，至少以我的经验来看，都承认应该有多种选拔领导人的方式。你知道，我还没听到有人说中国任何形式的一夫多妻制
应该被盲目地输出到其他国家，无论文化背景如何等等。但在西方，这仍然是一个问题，人们仍然认为
所谓的，我不会说所谓的西式选举是唯一更合法的选拔领导人的方式，我们应该允许合法的多样性。嘿，还有哪个领域如此重视多元化？
我之所以提出这一点，是因为一方面，这很明显；另一方面，这又不明显，因为
通常情况下，多元化的形式并不受到尊重。如果你读过《经济学人》
、《金融时报》或《华尔街日报》，你就会发现
在组织经济生活的方式上，还有另一个问题。一般来说，有一种观点认为，只有一种
道德上合法的经济组织方式，那就是资本主义的生活方式，呃，资本主义的
经济形式，在这种经济形式下，财产权受到尊重，并被视为基本权利。好吧，也许在某些国家是这样，但其他国家，包括中国，都坚定地致力于社会主义
理想，而当时的首要任务是减轻贫困。现在，这又回到了
社会主义思想，不仅仅是社会主义者。我的意思是，自古以来就存在着困惑，包括孔子。你知道，孔扎本人也说过，政府的首要任务应该是充分满足人民的基本物质需求，然后才能教育他们。乔，你知道，这种观点在中国有着悠久的历史。社会主义理想之所以在中国占据主导地位，并非偶然，因为他们可以借鉴早期的山谷
体系，该体系优先考虑减轻贫困。高于
其他价值观，包括尊重私有财产的必要性。嗯，中国宪法也明确规定了共产主义是最终目标。这是什么意思？嗯，如果你是美国人，这听起来可能不太好，但共产主义理想是一个非常美好的理想。共产主义理想是先进的机器完成所有必要的劳动，这样人们就不用再做脏活累活了。
每个人都有平等的机会发展他们的创造性才能，而不必再受枯燥乏味的劳动的束缚。这又是一个美好的想法。如果实现这一目标需要限制私有财产，那么那些致力于社会主义的国家就会这样做。我的意思是，
这并不是说我们国家应该盲目地剥夺人们的财产，而是
有时，当涉及到强有力的义务来减轻贫困时，
例如，土地分配可能是必要的，或者最终要发展到一个
先进的共产主义或先进的机器完成所有必要的劳动的状态，那么也许就或许应该对私有财产进行一些
合法的限制，我们应该允许更合法的
变化。我怀疑就目前情况而言，共产主义能否成为全球理想，但它
肯定可以成为一种指导中国政治体系的理想，其他国家也必须
承认并接受这一点，并认识到在如何组织经济生活方面存在着多元的思维方式。
好吧，让我再举最后一个例子，这个例子更多地来自
那些通常将伊斯兰教作为一种政治形式的国家。现在，再次强调，《世界人权宣言》（UDHR）强烈地构成了自由。
s
that perhaps the problem political legitimacy is less serious um but the disadvantage the advantages
of the polygamer toxins that leaders can plan for the long term uh and without worrying about being replaced and so on
um but the point is that the both political systems have already political ideals that inform the practice and they
need to be improved based on their own political ideals so yes I mean we can
use western style elections as a standard for improvement in the West and we can use Chinese style political
democracy as a standard for improvement in China always recognizing is a big gap
between the idea and the reality and we should strive to minimize that Gap but the question is what standards should we use contrary to the universal
Declaration of Human Rights and to the view that's so dominant and dogmatic in
Western countries we should allow for diversity diverse ways of selecting and
promoting public officials it depends on a country's well size for one thing on a
country's dominant political culture on dominant on levels of economic development these are all important
issues and we should offer plural ways of selecting leaders and not dogmatically assert that there's only
one way of selecting leaders again it's not a problem in China I think that most
Chinese intellectuals at least in my experience are recognize that there should be plural ways of selecting
leaders you know I haven't heard anybody who says that China any style polygamous
toxic should be you know blindly exported outside of China to other countries regardless of culture and so
on but in the west it's still a problem where people still think that that the
so-called well I'm not going to say so-called western style elections is the only more legitimate way of selecting
leaders we should allow for legitimate variation here Hey where's another area where plurality is so important to
respect and I I make this point because it's on the one hand it's obvious on the one hand it's not obvious because it's
typically not it's the form plurality it's not typically respected here's another one
on the way of organizing economic life again if you read The Economist
um or the financial times or the Wall Street Journal typically speaking there's a view that there's only one
morally legitimate way of organizing the economy and that's a kind of capitalist form of life uh capitalist form of
economy where the right to property is respected and it's held to be fundamental well okay maybe in some
countries but other countries including China are strongly committed to socialist
ideals were that which were the strong priority of garment is to alleviate poverty now again it's
both socialist idea that was not only socialists I mean the confusions ever since the early days including Confucius
you know Konza himself you know said that the first priority of government you know should be full you know
basically to make people to provide for people's basic material needs and only then do you educate them Joe you know
these these this view is very has a very long history in China and it's not a
coincidence that the Socialist ideals uh became dominant to China because they could build on this earlier Valley
system where which prioritized the uh the need to alleviate uh poverty above
other uh uh values including the need to respect private property
um now again China it's in the Constitution it's also committed to Communism as the ultimate end goal what
does that mean well again it it sounds bad if you're kind of American but the Communist ideal is very beautiful ideal
it's the idea that Advanced Machinery does all this necessary labor so people are freed from the need to do a dirty
and unwanted labor and all humans have the equal opportunity to develop their
creative talents and not be bound by mind-dulling labor again it's a
beautiful idea and if it requires restricting private property to get
there then countries that are committed to socialism will do that I mean it's
not to say that we you know that countries should you know blindly uh take away people's property but
sometimes when it comes to strong obligations to deal to alleviate poverty
you know for example or land distribution might be necessary or to ultimately move on to a state where uh
where Advanced communism or Advanced Machinery does all the necessary labor well then maybe there might be some
legitimate restrictions on private property again we should allow for more legitimate
variation I doubt that as it stands that communism can be Global ideal but it
certainly can be an ideal that informs China's political system and other countries are just going to have to
recognize and live with that and recognize that there's a plural ways of thinking about how to organize economic
life well let me give one last example and this one is more comes from
countries that are often committed to Islam as a as a political form now again
the universal Declaration of Human Rights udhr strongly forms the freedom o
that perhaps the problem political legitimacy is less serious um but the disadvantage the advantages
of the polygamer toxins that leaders can plan for the long term uh and without worrying about being replaced and so on
um but the point is that the both political systems have already political ideals that inform the practice and they
need to be improved based on their own political ideals so yes I mean we can
use western style elections as a standard for improvement in the West and we can use Chinese style political
democracy as a standard for improvement in China always recognizing is a big gap
between the idea and the reality and we should strive to minimize that Gap but the question is what standards should we use contrary to the universal
Declaration of Human Rights and to the view that's so dominant and dogmatic in
Western countries we should allow for diversity diverse ways of selecting and
promoting public officials it depends on a country's well size for one thing on a
country's dominant political culture on dominant on levels of economic development these are all important
issues and we should offer plural ways of selecting leaders and not dogmatically assert that there's only
one way of selecting leaders again it's not a problem in China I think that most
Chinese intellectuals at least in my experience are recognize that there should be plural ways of selecting
leaders you know I haven't heard anybody who says that China any style polygamous
toxic should be you know blindly exported outside of China to other countries regardless of culture and so
on but in the west it's still a problem where people still think that that the
so-called well I'm not going to say so-called western style elections is the only more legitimate way of selecting
leaders we should allow for legitimate variation here Hey where's another area where plurality is so important to
respect and I I make this point because it's on the one hand it's obvious on the one hand it's not obvious because it's
typically not it's the form plurality it's not typically respected here's another one
on the way of organizing economic life again if you read The Economist
um or the financial times or the Wall Street Journal typically speaking there's a view that there's only one
morally legitimate way of organizing the economy and that's a kind of capitalist form of life uh capitalist form of
economy where the right to property is respected and it's held to be fundamental well okay maybe in some
countries but other countries including China are strongly committed to socialist
ideals were that which were the strong priority of garment is to alleviate poverty now again it's
both socialist idea that was not only socialists I mean the confusions ever since the early days including Confucius
you know Konza himself you know said that the first priority of government you know should be full you know
basically to make people to provide for people's basic material needs and only then do you educate them Joe you know
these these this view is very has a very long history in China and it's not a
coincidence that the Socialist ideals uh became dominant to China because they could build on this earlier Valley
system where which prioritized the uh the need to alleviate uh poverty above
other uh uh values including the need to respect private property
um now again China it's in the Constitution it's also committed to Communism as the ultimate end goal what
does that mean well again it it sounds bad if you're kind of American but the Communist ideal is very beautiful ideal
it's the idea that Advanced Machinery does all this necessary labor so people are freed from the need to do a dirty
and unwanted labor and all humans have the equal opportunity to develop their
creative talents and not be bound by mind-dulling labor again it's a
beautiful idea and if it requires restricting private property to get
there then countries that are committed to socialism will do that I mean it's
not to say that we you know that countries should you know blindly uh take away people's property but
sometimes when it comes to strong obligations to deal to alleviate poverty
you know for example or land distribution might be necessary or to ultimately move on to a state where uh
where Advanced communism or Advanced Machinery does all the necessary labor well then maybe there might be some
legitimate restrictions on private property again we should allow for more legitimate
variation I doubt that as it stands that communism can be Global ideal but it
certainly can be an ideal that informs China's political system and other countries are just going to have to
recognize and live with that and recognize that there's a plural ways of thinking about how to organize economic
life well let me give one last example and this one is more comes from
countries that are often committed to Islam as a as a political form now again
the universal Declaration of Human Rights udhr strongly forms the freedom o
宗教在当代西方社会中的表现形式，嗯，是的，我的意思是，你知道，有时候我同意人们拥有宗教自由非常重要，但这并不意味着世界各地的所有政治共同体都应该如此运作，私人宗教和公共宗教之间应该有完全相同的区分。一些政治共同体可以合法地
认可国教，甚至限制其他宗教在公共生活中的角色，甚至可能
限制改变宗教信仰的自由。我并不是说我个人会
认可这种做法，但如果那些以伊斯兰价值体系为主导的国家，
制定类似的政策，或者至少在宗教领域以不同于西方社会的方式划分公共和私人领域，那么这是一种道德上合法的变异形式。现在，我很高兴地报告，在西方国家，也许自由主义哲学家约翰·罗尔斯在他去世前的最后一部著作《万民法》中几乎承认了这一点，他说，嗯，他说他所谓的嗯，他称之为正经文章。尊重基本人权的人们要记住基本人权，反对酷刑、谋杀、奴役、种族灭绝等等。我还要补充一些权利，嗯，为了提供基本的物质福祉，嗯，但是如果这些国家或人民组织起来，以便他们能够……宪法是围绕一个主流宗教而组织的，无论是伊斯兰教还是其他宗教，甚至规定只有该宗教的成员才能担任高级政治职务，你知道那些……他所说的“毒枭”在国际舞台上互动时应该得到自由社会的宽容。现在我的观点是，这应该不仅仅是宽容，而应该是某种相互尊重，因为有时我们……宽容英语听起来就像你捏着鼻子说，好吧，我不喜欢你们在做什么，但我会容忍它，你知道，就像你想要的那样，你可能想要容忍它，你知道，无论如何，嗯，但重点是在国际领域，在我得出结论之前，我要在这里总结一下，我们应该允许……在涉及三件重要的事情——选举公职人员和政治领导人的方式、组织经济生活的方式以及思考宗教在政治中的作用的方式——道德上合理的差异方面，我几乎可以肯定，在这三个关键领域，不会存在共同的观点和共同的价值观。我们应该允许道德上合理的差异。我确实认为，如果我们拥有一个能够拥护一些共同价值观的世界，比如基本人权，反对泛泛而谈的人权、反对酷刑、谋杀、奴役和种族灭绝，以及积极的权利，即享有基本物质福祉的权利，同时尊重在选举政治领导人的方式、组织经济的方式以及思考宗教在公共生活中的作用的方式方面道德上合理的差异，我们将拥有一个更加令人愉快的国际秩序，一个使我们能够解决问题的秩序。所以，请允许我在这里，我非常欢迎。嗯，再次强调，这些是持续不断的争议，可能10年或20年后，我们仍然会有不同的观点，甚至可能在我们的讨论中。所以，请允许我在这里，谢谢你，太棒了，你能听到我说话吗？是的，我能听到。谢谢，我转身。巴德教授，您说得对，太棒了。我想我已经听过很多关于这个话题的演讲了，但我敢说，这可能是最有启发性、最令人耳目一新、也最容易理解的演讲之一。所以，我希望，您的这部分演讲，会议结束后，全世界成千上万甚至数百万人都会听到。非常感谢！我特别感兴趣的是您提出的这些宣言最初是如何发起的，特别是如果在最初阶段就将原住民纳入其中，社会和谐和环境保护将会发挥截然不同的作用。然后您谈到了词汇的暴政，特别是我所说的英语的暴政，以及对事物的解读，然后把语言武器化，以至于我们几乎无法进行任何对话。我也特别喜欢您提出的这三点：我们如何选拔人才，我们如何组织……我们的社会，因此经济和信仰的作用，宗教信仰和习俗在我们的社会中，非常感谢你，我喜欢你，正如我之前所说的，请你继续，我们想邀请你参加第一个小组讨论，好的，谢谢你，谢谢你推荐我的小书给非常感谢
认可国教，甚至限制其他宗教在公共生活中的角色，甚至可能
限制改变宗教信仰的自由。我并不是说我个人会
认可这种做法，但如果那些以伊斯兰价值体系为主导的国家，
制定类似的政策，或者至少在宗教领域以不同于西方社会的方式划分公共和私人领域，那么这是一种道德上合法的变异形式。现在，我很高兴地报告，在西方国家，也许自由主义哲学家约翰·罗尔斯在他去世前的最后一部著作《万民法》中几乎承认了这一点，他说，嗯，他说他所谓的嗯，他称之为正经文章。尊重基本人权的人们要记住基本人权，反对酷刑、谋杀、奴役、种族灭绝等等。我还要补充一些权利，嗯，为了提供基本的物质福祉，嗯，但是如果这些国家或人民组织起来，以便他们能够……宪法是围绕一个主流宗教而组织的，无论是伊斯兰教还是其他宗教，甚至规定只有该宗教的成员才能担任高级政治职务，你知道那些……他所说的“毒枭”在国际舞台上互动时应该得到自由社会的宽容。现在我的观点是，这应该不仅仅是宽容，而应该是某种相互尊重，因为有时我们……宽容英语听起来就像你捏着鼻子说，好吧，我不喜欢你们在做什么，但我会容忍它，你知道，就像你想要的那样，你可能想要容忍它，你知道，无论如何，嗯，但重点是在国际领域，在我得出结论之前，我要在这里总结一下，我们应该允许……在涉及三件重要的事情——选举公职人员和政治领导人的方式、组织经济生活的方式以及思考宗教在政治中的作用的方式——道德上合理的差异方面，我几乎可以肯定，在这三个关键领域，不会存在共同的观点和共同的价值观。我们应该允许道德上合理的差异。我确实认为，如果我们拥有一个能够拥护一些共同价值观的世界，比如基本人权，反对泛泛而谈的人权、反对酷刑、谋杀、奴役和种族灭绝，以及积极的权利，即享有基本物质福祉的权利，同时尊重在选举政治领导人的方式、组织经济的方式以及思考宗教在公共生活中的作用的方式方面道德上合理的差异，我们将拥有一个更加令人愉快的国际秩序，一个使我们能够解决问题的秩序。所以，请允许我在这里，我非常欢迎。嗯，再次强调，这些是持续不断的争议，可能10年或20年后，我们仍然会有不同的观点，甚至可能在我们的讨论中。所以，请允许我在这里，谢谢你，太棒了，你能听到我说话吗？是的，我能听到。谢谢，我转身。巴德教授，您说得对，太棒了。我想我已经听过很多关于这个话题的演讲了，但我敢说，这可能是最有启发性、最令人耳目一新、也最容易理解的演讲之一。所以，我希望，您的这部分演讲，会议结束后，全世界成千上万甚至数百万人都会听到。非常感谢！我特别感兴趣的是您提出的这些宣言最初是如何发起的，特别是如果在最初阶段就将原住民纳入其中，社会和谐和环境保护将会发挥截然不同的作用。然后您谈到了词汇的暴政，特别是我所说的英语的暴政，以及对事物的解读，然后把语言武器化，以至于我们几乎无法进行任何对话。我也特别喜欢您提出的这三点：我们如何选拔人才，我们如何组织……我们的社会，因此经济和信仰的作用，宗教信仰和习俗在我们的社会中，非常感谢你，我喜欢你，正如我之前所说的，请你继续，我们想邀请你参加第一个小组讨论，好的，谢谢你，谢谢你推荐我的小书给非常感谢
f religion in the way that it's manifested in contemporary Western societies well yes I mean you know sometimes I agree that it's very important for people to have their freedom of religion but it doesn't mean that all political communities everywhere should operate this should have exactly the same distinction between you know private religion and public religion some political communities can legitimately
endorse the state religion and even Place constraints on the roles of other religions in public life and maybe even
on the freedom to change religious belief now I'm not saying that that's something that personally that I would
endorse but if countries that for example have a dominant Islamic value
system have policies along those lines or at least draw uh uh lines between what's
public and what's private in the religious sphere in ways that are different from Western societies well it's a form of morally legitimate variation now I'm glad to report that in Western countries the the perhaps the leading liberal philosopher John Rawls in his last work before he passed away on the law of peoples he almost he recognized this point he said what um he said that what he called is um he calls it decent article people that respect basic human rights remember basic human rights rights Against torture and murder slavery genocide and so on and I have we would also add some rights um uh to for the to provide basic
material well-being um but if those if countries or peoples organize themselves so that they have
played Constitutions are organized around a dominant religion whether it's Islam or another religion and even that uh provides that only members of that religion are allowed to hold High political office well you know those
what he calls the Narco people should be tolerated by liberal societies when they interact in the international Arena now my view is that it should be much more than Toleration it should be some sort of mutual respect you know because sometimes we're Toleration English it sounds like you know you hold your nose and say okay I don't like what you guys are doing but I'll I'll tolerate it you know just like you want it you might want to tolerate you know forms of well anyway um but the point is that in the international sphere and I'm going to summarize here before I conclude we should allow for morally legitimate variation when it comes to three important things ways of selecting public officials and political leaders
ways of organizing economic life and ways of thinking about the role of religion in politics and all of those three crucial areas there will not be I'm almost certain common views and common values and we should allow for morally legitimate variation I do think that if we have a world where we can endorse some common values like basic uh human rights against huge language of Human Rights rights Against torture murder slavery and genocide as well as positive rights rights for basic material well-being while respecting morally legitimate variation when it comes to ways of selecting political leaders ways of organizing the economy and ways of thinking about the role of religion in public life we would have a much more uh agreeable International order and one that allows us to solve problems so let me and here and I'm more than welcome um critical views again these are ongoing ongoing disputes and probably 10 or 20
years from now we would have yet different views or maybe even within our discussion so let me in here thank you wonderful can you hear me yeah I can hear you
thank you I'll turn off my right professor professor Bud thank you excellent uh I like to think I've I've
listened to uh various speeches on this topic but I dare say that was probably one of the most enlightening and refreshing but also easy to understand
uh so I'm hoping that uh this segment uh your speech will be wences conference is over we'll be listened to by hundreds of thousands even millions of people around the world so thank you so much and I was particularly interested that you brought forward the ideas of how these declarations were initiated in the first place uh particularly that uh if indigenous populations have been included in the initial stages uh social harmony and protection of environment would have taken on a very different role and then you talked about the the tyranny of vocabulary and particularly what I call the tyranny of English uh the the in interpretation of things and
then to weaponize language in ways that almost we can't have any more conversations and I particularly also
like this your your three points the how do we select people uh the ways in which we organize our societies and therefore economies and the role of beliefs religious beliefs and customs in in our societies uh thank you very much I like you as I've said before uh please uh uh stay on and we'd like to invite you to participate in in the first panel okay thank you and thank you for the the recommending my little book too thank you so much
endorse the state religion and even Place constraints on the roles of other religions in public life and maybe even
on the freedom to change religious belief now I'm not saying that that's something that personally that I would
endorse but if countries that for example have a dominant Islamic value
system have policies along those lines or at least draw uh uh lines between what's
public and what's private in the religious sphere in ways that are different from Western societies well it's a form of morally legitimate variation now I'm glad to report that in Western countries the the perhaps the leading liberal philosopher John Rawls in his last work before he passed away on the law of peoples he almost he recognized this point he said what um he said that what he called is um he calls it decent article people that respect basic human rights remember basic human rights rights Against torture and murder slavery genocide and so on and I have we would also add some rights um uh to for the to provide basic
material well-being um but if those if countries or peoples organize themselves so that they have
played Constitutions are organized around a dominant religion whether it's Islam or another religion and even that uh provides that only members of that religion are allowed to hold High political office well you know those
what he calls the Narco people should be tolerated by liberal societies when they interact in the international Arena now my view is that it should be much more than Toleration it should be some sort of mutual respect you know because sometimes we're Toleration English it sounds like you know you hold your nose and say okay I don't like what you guys are doing but I'll I'll tolerate it you know just like you want it you might want to tolerate you know forms of well anyway um but the point is that in the international sphere and I'm going to summarize here before I conclude we should allow for morally legitimate variation when it comes to three important things ways of selecting public officials and political leaders
ways of organizing economic life and ways of thinking about the role of religion in politics and all of those three crucial areas there will not be I'm almost certain common views and common values and we should allow for morally legitimate variation I do think that if we have a world where we can endorse some common values like basic uh human rights against huge language of Human Rights rights Against torture murder slavery and genocide as well as positive rights rights for basic material well-being while respecting morally legitimate variation when it comes to ways of selecting political leaders ways of organizing the economy and ways of thinking about the role of religion in public life we would have a much more uh agreeable International order and one that allows us to solve problems so let me and here and I'm more than welcome um critical views again these are ongoing ongoing disputes and probably 10 or 20
years from now we would have yet different views or maybe even within our discussion so let me in here thank you wonderful can you hear me yeah I can hear you
thank you I'll turn off my right professor professor Bud thank you excellent uh I like to think I've I've
listened to uh various speeches on this topic but I dare say that was probably one of the most enlightening and refreshing but also easy to understand
uh so I'm hoping that uh this segment uh your speech will be wences conference is over we'll be listened to by hundreds of thousands even millions of people around the world so thank you so much and I was particularly interested that you brought forward the ideas of how these declarations were initiated in the first place uh particularly that uh if indigenous populations have been included in the initial stages uh social harmony and protection of environment would have taken on a very different role and then you talked about the the tyranny of vocabulary and particularly what I call the tyranny of English uh the the in interpretation of things and
then to weaponize language in ways that almost we can't have any more conversations and I particularly also
like this your your three points the how do we select people uh the ways in which we organize our societies and therefore economies and the role of beliefs religious beliefs and customs in in our societies uh thank you very much I like you as I've said before uh please uh uh stay on and we'd like to invite you to participate in in the first panel okay thank you and thank you for the the recommending my little book too thank you so much
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
um what I'm going to do today is there's two parts of this theme the first is finding common values and the second is
plurality in the emerging World Order and I'm going to first ask the question is how do we find common values um and
what are they and I will make some suggestions and then I'll suggest areas where there is legitimate plurality that
should be respected by different societies around the world so let me first quit this the first part here finding common values now when you ask about that the first thing that often comes to mind when you ask people um whether it's especially government people or people working for ngos or
academics who work in law and international law for example you ask them what do we mean by common values
well they always say that's quite easy there's a response there's an answer to that it's the universal Declaration of
Human Rights which was passed by the United Nations in 1948 by the general
assembly as a common standard of achievement for All Peoples and Nations so we don't need to discuss anymore
about this issue what are common values it's already there it's enshrined and it was endorsed by the United Nations why
do we have to talk further well the reason why we have to talk
further and not take I'm going to say I'm going to see Universal Declaration of Human Rights it's udhr for short why is that not a sufficient document for thinking about common values well there's several reasons first reason is that it includes rights
that are very controversial today you remember this was 1948 shortly after the
Allies as they say defeated other countries in World War II and they were
very much um the document the universal Declaration of Human Rights very much expresses the dominant values of let's just be frank the Western Powers
um that were Victorious uh in World War II if you look at the document today it
includes articles that would clearly not be endorsed by for example the Chinese government and many governments around
the world for example one article makes it very clear I have it here on on on on
the slide it very it's it suggests that the only morally legitimate form of
government is one that is selected by the People by means of free and fair
elections or secret votes now obviously that's one way of selecting leaders but
it's not the only way nor is it the only morally legitimate way it's very controversial to claim that free and
fair elections today is the only morally legitimate way of selecting leaders and we can be quite sure that if there were
a general assembly today discussing this sort of document that that article would
not be endorsed as a kind of common value today or another article basically endorsing
the right to property that everyone has the right to own property alone well again in capitalist countries fair
enough you know that is a a the right to property is is almost held sacred often
but in countries that adhere to socialist uh economic uh ideals
including China it would be very very controversial and we can be sure that if there were deliberations today about
what our common values that the right to property would not would be highly
controversial and unlikely would not be endorsed today by the United Nations if
there were such a kind of discussion today so another problem with the udhr
again the udhr it's it's a very valuable document and I think it does help sometimes to promote human rights uh
where where people are oppressed but it's certainly not a sufficient document
when we think about what are the common values today a another problem with the
universal Declaration of Human Rights is that it doesn't prioritize between rights and provides no guidance in cases
of conflict I mean it's quite a long list of Rights some of them are not very controversial like the idea that nobody
should be held in slavery or servitude I mean uh very few if any governments
today would endorse that or intellectuals for that matter I mean there is still slavery sometimes but
it's done in a kind of secret way and not publicly endorsed or for example there is also the right to life you know
only queer crazy terrorists would object to that I mean those are Universal rights or interests and and and very few
would object to them but the universal Declaration of Human Rights also includes rights that are very
controversial and or at least characteristic of economically developed societies
for example this part of article 24 that everyone has the right to periodic holidays with pay I mean obviously
that's a good idea but in poor countries that have many other priorities you can't expect that to be uh uh endorsed
in a very strong way so there's a need to distinguish between the fundamental rights or let's just say fundamental
needs or interests that are true of people around the world regardless of culture regardless of a level of
Economic Development like the right not to be in slave for example or the right Against torture or the right to life
versus other rights that are quite controversial in particular and depend upon sometimes culture and sometimes
level of Economic Development and the universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't distinguish between let's call
them basic important rights and those that are less important or let's say more particular so that's another problem why um the universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot be seen as a document
that represents common values today I mean for one thing even if it even if
some of these are endorsed at the level of principle some of them are difficult to implement um okay what's another problem another problem is that the udhr implicitly affirms an overly individualistic way of life and you have to remember again that the udhr represents pretty much the dominant outlooks of Western Powers after World War II um so you have you know capitalist defense of private property um and you have values and rights that are very important for individuals that seek individual autonomy Above All Else now that's a bit of an exaggeration so let me take back a little bit what I just said because there was one Chinese philosopher of course this is before the establishment of the People's Republic of China he was close to the uh kmt but he was also um a kind of adherent of Confucian values and he is said to have influenced the very first article of the universal declaration that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and this
is very important Point endowed with reason and conscience and the word conscience in Chinese is Liang Shin
which comes straight from mentions from monks and apparently PC Chang the
philosopher was influential in getting that endorsed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so it's an exaggeration to say that it's kind of totally West Centric and individualistic um because there is this kind of confusion element that said admittedly we have to say that if the there had
been much greater representation of non Western cultures and religions and value systems not just Confucianism but for example Ubuntu and Indigenous Traditions
from around the world including First Nations where I am now in Canada um obviously the document would have
looked very different than what it is now there would have been much more sense on the importance of social harmony I mean social harmony as a value
in in capitalist Western countries it's not regarded as as so important and fundamental but in other value systems
including Confucianism and Ubuntu sub-Saharan African ethical system
clearly social harmony is sometimes reviewed as the mother of all values or
the protection for the environment I mean obviously of indigenous Traditions had been if representatives of
indigenous traditions and First Nations had been involved in deliberations there would have been much more emphasis on
protection for the environment as a fundamental human value as a common value unfortunately because again the
udhr is predominantly a product of the Victorious Western Powers after World
War II so um there is these this these kind of values are lacking let's call them so
for lack of a better term a non-western values which often are quite dominant if you look at the world's population
so what do we do then how do we move from here how do we find common values that are lacking arguably in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights well there's lots of things we can do and lots of things that have been done
one is to let's start a modern a new dialogue with leaders and
representatives of diverse ethical and religious Traditions from around the world so we have thinkers for example uh
Professor tueming who used to be at Harvard now he's at Peking University beta in China he's been part of many of
these we can call him civilizational dialogues and and these include so that the idea is to have a more inclusive
dialogue than was the case in the Universal education of Human Rights including participants of again Traditions that are not characteristic or dominant of Western capitalist countries um and this has led to some results the problem though is that the more inclusive the dialogue the greater the
number of participants and the greater the diversity of participants it turns out it's very hard to achieve consensus
on anything other than platitudes like one example I I've been part of these
dialogue they're much more common about 15 20 years ago because there was still hope that we could achieve something
meaningful but now frankly there's much more there's a bit more pessimism not just because of the geopolitics which
makes it more much more difficult to have you know rational and informed debate between let's say China and the
us but also just because it's hard to set to agree upon meaningful Global values that can have bite and that could
shape political reality so many of the abstractions are you know we should all strive to be good and avoid doing bad
but they're so abstract that they do not have the power to shape political realities which often involve contoursal
issues and how do we distribute scarce resources and and where do we prioritize so this is a bit of a problem so what do
we do these these inter-civilizational dialogues have not been very successful I regret to report what do we do then
well another proposal and this is at the national level you have a lot of these Global assemblies no
sorry National Assemblies of randomly selected citizens in in countries for example that PL that discuss issues and
formed by experts then come up with ideas for how to move forward and those are truly representative at the level of
the nation the problem is that if we do these assemblies at the global level just imagine the difficulty again of achieving a kind of consensus given that there would be so many diverse participants and and the
participants are unlikely to overcome problems that have played that have plagued strategy one in other words it's
going to be very hard to achieve consensus on anything other than platitudes and abstractions that do not
have the power to shape Global realities maybe it's worth trying that hasn't been
tried yet actually um but um frankly it's hard to be very
optimistic though I would still think it's a it's a strategy worth trying so what are some other possibilities
well here's another possibility well you have political theories of
global outlooks much more sensitive you know when I first started learning political Theory as an undergraduate at
McGill University in Montreal we had courses that are sometimes called Plato to Nato for us political Theory meant we
learned about the ancient Greeks from from Plato and then we move forward you know all the way through a mill uh and
and and and ending up with roles or NATO as a kind of hot joke the point is that it was a completely West Centric
curriculum and political theorists in the west hardly viewed non-western
Traditions such as Confucianism or Hinduism or Islam or Ubuntu and so on as
morally valuable so but today it's a different story more
and more if you have informed political theorists who who really try to
seriously engage with non-western traditions and think about which values are Universal and which ones are not
which ones are particular to put to to societies and one very inspiring thinker
to me is Michael waltzer um and he's a he's American extremely broad-minded and sensitive to cultural
difference and and he has he makes a very important distinction between what he calls thick and thin human rights and
he argues that only these thin human rights sometimes we use the language of negative rights against murder slavery
and torture and genocide should be viewed as universal no sane government
or frankly sane intellectual would object to those
um again you have crazy Theory uh terrorists who might do so I was about to say crazy theorists maybe also
um but generally speaking we can achieve consensus among these negative uh human
rights against murder slavery and torture of course they're done these rights are violated in practice but the
point is that at the level of public discourse uh they're endorsed and it's a
matter of exposing the gap between the reality and the ideal but at the level of Ideal there's really no dispute among
informed people from around the world on the value of these rights
but when it comes to other rights again Michael Walter calls them thick rice that are not these basic human rights
you know examples might include the right to private property um or ways of selecting leaders
um then we should allow for variation from a culture to culture we should allow for more more legitimate variation
I mean sometimes they're not more there's not more than legitimate variation you know if uh let's say a
government assumes powered by military coup or uh or by let's say genocide
um uh then obviously that's not more legitimate but if a government protects basic human rights like rights against
murder slavery and torture and so on and they're chosen by means of then competitive elections then we should
respect that as a as a kind of morally legitimate variation
now I think that's a promising approach but again it's a little still too West Centric in the sense that there's a
census on negative human rights as truly Universal but again if you look outside the west and you ask governments and and
most intellectuals and political reformers what are the universal rights
for you what are the truly most important rights or let's just say human interests
or needs and very often people say well it's right not to be poor or rights to
protect people from starvation or protect people or give provide decent Health Care and housing these are are
much more fundamental and Universal so it's not just a negative rights Against torture and slavery and murder but also
we can call them positive rights such as the government so the governments have a positive obligation to protect people
from starvation and to provide decent health care and how and and minimal housing these are also Universal rights
again we need much more dialogue uh to to think about what are the common
values but we also have to ask you know even the language of rice itself sometimes can be seen as a bit West
Centric I mean some traditions don't use a language of rice to express what's fundamental about human needs or
interests and we shouldn't necessarily be stuck on the language of human rights as the only legit limit language of
talking about common values we should allow for different vocabulary even if in substance there might not be much
difference so for example when we talk about the need for social harmony or protection of natural environment rights
language might not be necessarily the best language to make sense of those fundamental common values so again this
is more of an intuition because it's still an ongoing debate but if we think about different strategies for moving
beyond the universal Declaration of Human Rights and for thinking about which values are truly Universal what
are the common values that are shared by All Humans regardless of culture regardless of levels of economic
development quite likely we're going to settle Upon A minimal list we can say of
Human Rights although it won't always be expressed in this language of Human Rights including negative rights against
murder slavery torture and genocide and positive rights such as the obligation
of governments to provide for basic material needs protecting people from
starvation from decent and decent health care and also to protect the natural
environment I mean more and more it's so obvious now I mean climate change wasn't an issue when the universal Declaration
of Human Rights is being formulated but obviously now it's a common uh value
that should resonate with people around the world regardless of culture um or or
level of Economic Development so this is basically
um where where I think we would move uh if we're thinking about what are the common values um and we doesn't mean we need to reject the universe of that Christian human rights but certainly we need to build on
it and not regard as a sufficient document for thinking about common values I mean it was a it was a product of its time and perhaps now it's time to move on to something else that is much much more inclusive of non-western value systems um so that we can arrive at a
truly inclusive and universal view of what are the common values now I want to move on to the second part
of of this talk and I'm going to I won't spend too much time on it but there's
two parts here in this I think two important themes in our conference today and the first again again is what are
the common values but what are the second part is what is the plurality that we need to reject that we need to
respect and again this is I really do think that
the problem here is lies much more in the west than in the non-west I mean uh
whether it's the it's prob probably it's more a deeper problem in the United States but in other Western countries
you have a similar view that our political system is the best
and ultimately one that should set the model for the rest of the world
um and what do we mean by that we mean a political system a democratic political system where political leaders are
selected by means of one person one vote again that view also informs the universe Universal Declaration of Human
Rights um it's a relatively new uh view it's only in post-world War II that it became
a kind of dominant view you know the 19th century the British liberal Johnston Mill I mean he he said oh no
not everybody has equal capacity to make morally informed political judgment we should give extra both to educated
people he could make that claim and not be viewed as crazy but in the west today if you argue for alternatives to one
person one view one vote you're viewed as a defender of autocracy which is bad it's morally illegitimate now again
let's Place ourselves outside the west and course I've been working in China for many years so to me I have to ask
you know what is the dominant political ideal that informs the Chinese political system well it's we can call it
political meritocracy in Chinese it's shenang and this is the view that public
officials are supposed to be selected and promoted based on Superior ability
and virtue virtue means a willingness to serve the people ability means that kind of demonstrated ability to serve the
people and public officials are putting out put on through a decades-long process to select and promote uh to
select to be selected and be promoted now it's not a perfect system it's highly imperfect just as western style
democracy is highly imperfect you know in practice often it's not one person one vote it's one dollar one vote in the
in China highly imperfect you often have corrupt leaders who are selected and who are not filtered as they should be and
both so both systems have advantages and the end disadvantages you know it's the advantages of what one person vote is
that perhaps the problem political legitimacy is less serious um but the disadvantage the advantages
of the polygamer toxins that leaders can plan for the long term uh and without worrying about being replaced and so on
um but the point is that the both political systems have already political ideals that inform the practice and they
need to be improved based on their own political ideals so yes I mean we can
use western style elections as a standard for improvement in the West and we can use Chinese style political democracy as a standard for improvement in China always recognizing is a big gap between the idea and the reality and we should strive to minimize that Gap but the question is what standards should we use contrary to the universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the view that's so dominant and dogmatic in Western countries we should allow for diversity diverse ways of selecting and promoting public officials it depends on a country's well size for one thing on a
country's dominant political culture on dominant on levels of economic development these are all important
issues and we should offer plural ways of selecting leaders and not dogmatically assert that there's only one way of selecting leaders again it's not a problem in China I think that most Chinese intellectuals at least in my experience are recognize that there should be plural ways of selecting
leaders you know I haven't heard anybody who says that China any style polygamous toxic should be you know blindly exported outside of China to other countries regardless of culture and so
on but in the west it's still a problem where people still think that that the
so-called well I'm not going to say so-called western style elections is the only more legitimate way of selecting
leaders we should allow for legitimate variation here Hey where's another area where plurality is so important to
respect and I I make this point because it's on the one hand it's obvious on the one hand it's not obvious because it's
typically not it's the form plurality it's not typically respected here's another one
on the way of organizing economic life again if you read The Economist
um or the financial times or the Wall Street Journal typically speaking there's a view that there's only one
morally legitimate way of organizing the economy and that's a kind of capitalist form of life uh capitalist form of
economy where the right to property is respected and it's held to be fundamental well okay maybe in some
countries but other countries including China are strongly committed to socialist
ideals were that which were the strong priority of garment is to alleviate poverty now again it's both socialist idea that was not only socialists I mean the confusions ever since the early days including Confucius
you know Konza himself you know said that the first priority of government you know should be full you know basically to make people to provide for people's basic material needs and only then do you educate them Joe you know
these these this view is very has a very long history in China and it's not a
coincidence that the Socialist ideals uh became dominant to China because they could build on this earlier Valley system where which prioritized the uh the need to alleviate uh poverty above other uh uh values including the need to respect private property
um now again China it's in the Constitution it's also committed to Communism as the ultimate end goal what
does that mean well again it it sounds bad if you're kind of American but the Communist ideal is very beautiful ideal
it's the idea that Advanced Machinery does all this necessary labor so people are freed from the need to do a dirty
and unwanted labor and all humans have the equal opportunity to develop their
creative talents and not be bound by mind-dulling labor again it's a
beautiful idea and if it requires restricting private property to get
there then countries that are committed to socialism will do that I mean it's
not to say that we you know that countries should you know blindly uh take away people's property but sometimes when it comes to strong obligations to deal to alleviate poverty you know for example or land distribution might be necessary or to ultimately move on to a state where where Advanced communism or Advanced Machinery does all the necessary labor well then maybe there might be some legitimate restrictions on private property again we should allow for more legitimate variation I doubt that as it stands that communism can be Global ideal but it certainly can be an ideal that informs China's political system and other countries are just going to have to
recognize and live with that and recognize that there's a plural ways of thinking about how to organize economic
life well let me give one last example and this one is more comes from
countries that are often committed to Islam as a as a political form now again
the universal Declaration of Human Rights udhr strongly forms the freedom of religion in the way that it's manifested in contemporary Western societies
well yes I mean you know sometimes I agree that it's very important for people to have their freedom of religion
but it doesn't mean that all political communities everywhere should operate this should have exactly the same
distinction between you know private religion and public religion some political communities can legitimately
endorse the state religion and even Place constraints on the roles of other religions in public life and maybe even
on the freedom to change religious belief now I'm not saying that that's something that personally that I would
endorse but if countries that for example have a dominant Islamic value
system have policies along those lines or at least draw uh uh lines between what's
public and what's private in the religious sphere in ways that are different from Western societies well it's a form of morally legitimate
variation now I'm glad to report that in Western countries the the perhaps the
leading liberal philosopher John Rawls in his last work before he passed away
on the law of peoples he almost he recognized this point he said what
um he said that what he called is um he calls it decent article people
that respect basic human rights remember basic human rights rights Against torture and murder slavery genocide and
so on and I have we would also add some rights um uh to for the to provide basic
material well-being um but if those if countries or peoples organize themselves so that they have
played Constitutions are organized around a dominant religion whether it's Islam or another religion and even that
uh provides that only members of that religion are allowed to hold High political office well you know those
what he calls the Narco people should be tolerated by liberal societies when they
interact in the international Arena now my view is that it should be much more than Toleration it should be some sort
of mutual respect you know because sometimes we're Toleration English it sounds like you know you hold your nose and say okay I don't like what you guys
are doing but I'll I'll tolerate it you know just like you want it you might want to tolerate you know forms of well
anyway um but the point is that in the international sphere and I'm going to
summarize here before I conclude we should allow for morally legitimate variation when it comes to three
important things ways of selecting public officials and political leaders
ways of organizing economic life and ways of thinking about the role of
religion in politics and all of those three crucial areas there will not be
I'm almost certain common views and common values and we should allow for
morally legitimate variation I do think that if we have a world where we can endorse some common values like basic human rights against huge language of Human Rights rights Against torture murder slavery and genocide as well as positive rights rights for basic material well-being while respecting morally legitimate variation when it comes to ways of selecting political leaders ways of organizing the economy and ways of thinking about the role of religion in public life we would have a much more uh agreeable International order and one that allows us to solve problems so let me and here and I'm more than welcome
um critical views again these are ongoing ongoing disputes and probably 10 or 20 years from now we would have yet different views or maybe even within our discussion so let me in here thank you
wonderful can you hear me yeah I can hear you
thank you I'll turn off my right professor professor Bud thank you excellent uh I like to think I've I've listened to uh various speeches on this topic but I dare say that was probably one of the most enlightening and refreshing but also easy to understand uh so I'm hoping that uh this segment uh your speech will be wences conference is over we'll be listened to by hundreds of thousands even millions of people around the world so thank you so much and I was
particularly interested that you brought forward the ideas of how these
declarations were initiated in the first place uh particularly that uh if
indigenous populations have been included in the initial stages uh social harmony and protection of environment
would have taken on a very different role and then you talked about the the tyranny of vocabulary and particularly
what I call the tyranny of English uh the the in interpretation of things and
then to weaponize language in ways that almost we can't have any more conversations and I particularly also
like this your your three points the how do we select people uh the ways in which
we organize our societies and therefore economies and the role of beliefs religious beliefs and customs in in our
societies uh thank you very much I like you as I've said before uh please uh uh
stay on and we'd like to invite you to participate in in the first panel okay thank you and thank you for the the
recommending my little book too thank you so much
um what I'm going to do today is there's two parts of this theme the first is finding common values and the second is
plurality in the emerging World Order and I'm going to first ask the question is how do we find common values um and
what are they and I will make some suggestions and then I'll suggest areas where there is legitimate plurality that
should be respected by different societies around the world so let me first quit this the first part here finding common values now when you ask about that the first thing that often comes to mind when you ask people um whether it's especially government people or people working for ngos or
academics who work in law and international law for example you ask them what do we mean by common values
well they always say that's quite easy there's a response there's an answer to that it's the universal Declaration of
Human Rights which was passed by the United Nations in 1948 by the general
assembly as a common standard of achievement for All Peoples and Nations so we don't need to discuss anymore
about this issue what are common values it's already there it's enshrined and it was endorsed by the United Nations why
do we have to talk further well the reason why we have to talk
further and not take I'm going to say I'm going to see Universal Declaration of Human Rights it's udhr for short why is that not a sufficient document for thinking about common values well there's several reasons first reason is that it includes rights
that are very controversial today you remember this was 1948 shortly after the
Allies as they say defeated other countries in World War II and they were
very much um the document the universal Declaration of Human Rights very much expresses the dominant values of let's just be frank the Western Powers
um that were Victorious uh in World War II if you look at the document today it
includes articles that would clearly not be endorsed by for example the Chinese government and many governments around
the world for example one article makes it very clear I have it here on on on on
the slide it very it's it suggests that the only morally legitimate form of
government is one that is selected by the People by means of free and fair
elections or secret votes now obviously that's one way of selecting leaders but
it's not the only way nor is it the only morally legitimate way it's very controversial to claim that free and
fair elections today is the only morally legitimate way of selecting leaders and we can be quite sure that if there were
a general assembly today discussing this sort of document that that article would
not be endorsed as a kind of common value today or another article basically endorsing
the right to property that everyone has the right to own property alone well again in capitalist countries fair
enough you know that is a a the right to property is is almost held sacred often
but in countries that adhere to socialist uh economic uh ideals
including China it would be very very controversial and we can be sure that if there were deliberations today about
what our common values that the right to property would not would be highly
controversial and unlikely would not be endorsed today by the United Nations if
there were such a kind of discussion today so another problem with the udhr
again the udhr it's it's a very valuable document and I think it does help sometimes to promote human rights uh
where where people are oppressed but it's certainly not a sufficient document
when we think about what are the common values today a another problem with the
universal Declaration of Human Rights is that it doesn't prioritize between rights and provides no guidance in cases
of conflict I mean it's quite a long list of Rights some of them are not very controversial like the idea that nobody
should be held in slavery or servitude I mean uh very few if any governments
today would endorse that or intellectuals for that matter I mean there is still slavery sometimes but
it's done in a kind of secret way and not publicly endorsed or for example there is also the right to life you know
only queer crazy terrorists would object to that I mean those are Universal rights or interests and and and very few
would object to them but the universal Declaration of Human Rights also includes rights that are very
controversial and or at least characteristic of economically developed societies
for example this part of article 24 that everyone has the right to periodic holidays with pay I mean obviously
that's a good idea but in poor countries that have many other priorities you can't expect that to be uh uh endorsed
in a very strong way so there's a need to distinguish between the fundamental rights or let's just say fundamental
needs or interests that are true of people around the world regardless of culture regardless of a level of
Economic Development like the right not to be in slave for example or the right Against torture or the right to life
versus other rights that are quite controversial in particular and depend upon sometimes culture and sometimes
level of Economic Development and the universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't distinguish between let's call
them basic important rights and those that are less important or let's say more particular so that's another problem why um the universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot be seen as a document
that represents common values today I mean for one thing even if it even if
some of these are endorsed at the level of principle some of them are difficult to implement um okay what's another problem another problem is that the udhr implicitly affirms an overly individualistic way of life and you have to remember again that the udhr represents pretty much the dominant outlooks of Western Powers after World War II um so you have you know capitalist defense of private property um and you have values and rights that are very important for individuals that seek individual autonomy Above All Else now that's a bit of an exaggeration so let me take back a little bit what I just said because there was one Chinese philosopher of course this is before the establishment of the People's Republic of China he was close to the uh kmt but he was also um a kind of adherent of Confucian values and he is said to have influenced the very first article of the universal declaration that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and this
is very important Point endowed with reason and conscience and the word conscience in Chinese is Liang Shin
which comes straight from mentions from monks and apparently PC Chang the
philosopher was influential in getting that endorsed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so it's an exaggeration to say that it's kind of totally West Centric and individualistic um because there is this kind of confusion element that said admittedly we have to say that if the there had
been much greater representation of non Western cultures and religions and value systems not just Confucianism but for example Ubuntu and Indigenous Traditions
from around the world including First Nations where I am now in Canada um obviously the document would have
looked very different than what it is now there would have been much more sense on the importance of social harmony I mean social harmony as a value
in in capitalist Western countries it's not regarded as as so important and fundamental but in other value systems
including Confucianism and Ubuntu sub-Saharan African ethical system
clearly social harmony is sometimes reviewed as the mother of all values or
the protection for the environment I mean obviously of indigenous Traditions had been if representatives of
indigenous traditions and First Nations had been involved in deliberations there would have been much more emphasis on
protection for the environment as a fundamental human value as a common value unfortunately because again the
udhr is predominantly a product of the Victorious Western Powers after World
War II so um there is these this these kind of values are lacking let's call them so
for lack of a better term a non-western values which often are quite dominant if you look at the world's population
so what do we do then how do we move from here how do we find common values that are lacking arguably in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights well there's lots of things we can do and lots of things that have been done
one is to let's start a modern a new dialogue with leaders and
representatives of diverse ethical and religious Traditions from around the world so we have thinkers for example uh
Professor tueming who used to be at Harvard now he's at Peking University beta in China he's been part of many of
these we can call him civilizational dialogues and and these include so that the idea is to have a more inclusive
dialogue than was the case in the Universal education of Human Rights including participants of again Traditions that are not characteristic or dominant of Western capitalist countries um and this has led to some results the problem though is that the more inclusive the dialogue the greater the
number of participants and the greater the diversity of participants it turns out it's very hard to achieve consensus
on anything other than platitudes like one example I I've been part of these
dialogue they're much more common about 15 20 years ago because there was still hope that we could achieve something
meaningful but now frankly there's much more there's a bit more pessimism not just because of the geopolitics which
makes it more much more difficult to have you know rational and informed debate between let's say China and the
us but also just because it's hard to set to agree upon meaningful Global values that can have bite and that could
shape political reality so many of the abstractions are you know we should all strive to be good and avoid doing bad
but they're so abstract that they do not have the power to shape political realities which often involve contoursal
issues and how do we distribute scarce resources and and where do we prioritize so this is a bit of a problem so what do
we do these these inter-civilizational dialogues have not been very successful I regret to report what do we do then
well another proposal and this is at the national level you have a lot of these Global assemblies no
sorry National Assemblies of randomly selected citizens in in countries for example that PL that discuss issues and
formed by experts then come up with ideas for how to move forward and those are truly representative at the level of
the nation the problem is that if we do these assemblies at the global level just imagine the difficulty again of achieving a kind of consensus given that there would be so many diverse participants and and the
participants are unlikely to overcome problems that have played that have plagued strategy one in other words it's
going to be very hard to achieve consensus on anything other than platitudes and abstractions that do not
have the power to shape Global realities maybe it's worth trying that hasn't been
tried yet actually um but um frankly it's hard to be very
optimistic though I would still think it's a it's a strategy worth trying so what are some other possibilities
well here's another possibility well you have political theories of
global outlooks much more sensitive you know when I first started learning political Theory as an undergraduate at
McGill University in Montreal we had courses that are sometimes called Plato to Nato for us political Theory meant we
learned about the ancient Greeks from from Plato and then we move forward you know all the way through a mill uh and
and and and ending up with roles or NATO as a kind of hot joke the point is that it was a completely West Centric
curriculum and political theorists in the west hardly viewed non-western
Traditions such as Confucianism or Hinduism or Islam or Ubuntu and so on as
morally valuable so but today it's a different story more
and more if you have informed political theorists who who really try to
seriously engage with non-western traditions and think about which values are Universal and which ones are not
which ones are particular to put to to societies and one very inspiring thinker
to me is Michael waltzer um and he's a he's American extremely broad-minded and sensitive to cultural
difference and and he has he makes a very important distinction between what he calls thick and thin human rights and
he argues that only these thin human rights sometimes we use the language of negative rights against murder slavery
and torture and genocide should be viewed as universal no sane government
or frankly sane intellectual would object to those
um again you have crazy Theory uh terrorists who might do so I was about to say crazy theorists maybe also
um but generally speaking we can achieve consensus among these negative uh human
rights against murder slavery and torture of course they're done these rights are violated in practice but the
point is that at the level of public discourse uh they're endorsed and it's a
matter of exposing the gap between the reality and the ideal but at the level of Ideal there's really no dispute among
informed people from around the world on the value of these rights
but when it comes to other rights again Michael Walter calls them thick rice that are not these basic human rights
you know examples might include the right to private property um or ways of selecting leaders
um then we should allow for variation from a culture to culture we should allow for more more legitimate variation
I mean sometimes they're not more there's not more than legitimate variation you know if uh let's say a
government assumes powered by military coup or uh or by let's say genocide
um uh then obviously that's not more legitimate but if a government protects basic human rights like rights against
murder slavery and torture and so on and they're chosen by means of then competitive elections then we should
respect that as a as a kind of morally legitimate variation
now I think that's a promising approach but again it's a little still too West Centric in the sense that there's a
census on negative human rights as truly Universal but again if you look outside the west and you ask governments and and
most intellectuals and political reformers what are the universal rights
for you what are the truly most important rights or let's just say human interests
or needs and very often people say well it's right not to be poor or rights to
protect people from starvation or protect people or give provide decent Health Care and housing these are are
much more fundamental and Universal so it's not just a negative rights Against torture and slavery and murder but also
we can call them positive rights such as the government so the governments have a positive obligation to protect people
from starvation and to provide decent health care and how and and minimal housing these are also Universal rights
again we need much more dialogue uh to to think about what are the common
values but we also have to ask you know even the language of rice itself sometimes can be seen as a bit West
Centric I mean some traditions don't use a language of rice to express what's fundamental about human needs or
interests and we shouldn't necessarily be stuck on the language of human rights as the only legit limit language of
talking about common values we should allow for different vocabulary even if in substance there might not be much
difference so for example when we talk about the need for social harmony or protection of natural environment rights
language might not be necessarily the best language to make sense of those fundamental common values so again this
is more of an intuition because it's still an ongoing debate but if we think about different strategies for moving
beyond the universal Declaration of Human Rights and for thinking about which values are truly Universal what
are the common values that are shared by All Humans regardless of culture regardless of levels of economic
development quite likely we're going to settle Upon A minimal list we can say of
Human Rights although it won't always be expressed in this language of Human Rights including negative rights against
murder slavery torture and genocide and positive rights such as the obligation
of governments to provide for basic material needs protecting people from
starvation from decent and decent health care and also to protect the natural
environment I mean more and more it's so obvious now I mean climate change wasn't an issue when the universal Declaration
of Human Rights is being formulated but obviously now it's a common uh value
that should resonate with people around the world regardless of culture um or or
level of Economic Development so this is basically
um where where I think we would move uh if we're thinking about what are the common values um and we doesn't mean we need to reject the universe of that Christian human rights but certainly we need to build on
it and not regard as a sufficient document for thinking about common values I mean it was a it was a product of its time and perhaps now it's time to move on to something else that is much much more inclusive of non-western value systems um so that we can arrive at a
truly inclusive and universal view of what are the common values now I want to move on to the second part
of of this talk and I'm going to I won't spend too much time on it but there's
two parts here in this I think two important themes in our conference today and the first again again is what are
the common values but what are the second part is what is the plurality that we need to reject that we need to
respect and again this is I really do think that
the problem here is lies much more in the west than in the non-west I mean uh
whether it's the it's prob probably it's more a deeper problem in the United States but in other Western countries
you have a similar view that our political system is the best
and ultimately one that should set the model for the rest of the world
um and what do we mean by that we mean a political system a democratic political system where political leaders are
selected by means of one person one vote again that view also informs the universe Universal Declaration of Human
Rights um it's a relatively new uh view it's only in post-world War II that it became
a kind of dominant view you know the 19th century the British liberal Johnston Mill I mean he he said oh no
not everybody has equal capacity to make morally informed political judgment we should give extra both to educated
people he could make that claim and not be viewed as crazy but in the west today if you argue for alternatives to one
person one view one vote you're viewed as a defender of autocracy which is bad it's morally illegitimate now again
let's Place ourselves outside the west and course I've been working in China for many years so to me I have to ask
you know what is the dominant political ideal that informs the Chinese political system well it's we can call it
political meritocracy in Chinese it's shenang and this is the view that public
officials are supposed to be selected and promoted based on Superior ability
and virtue virtue means a willingness to serve the people ability means that kind of demonstrated ability to serve the
people and public officials are putting out put on through a decades-long process to select and promote uh to
select to be selected and be promoted now it's not a perfect system it's highly imperfect just as western style
democracy is highly imperfect you know in practice often it's not one person one vote it's one dollar one vote in the
in China highly imperfect you often have corrupt leaders who are selected and who are not filtered as they should be and
both so both systems have advantages and the end disadvantages you know it's the advantages of what one person vote is
that perhaps the problem political legitimacy is less serious um but the disadvantage the advantages
of the polygamer toxins that leaders can plan for the long term uh and without worrying about being replaced and so on
um but the point is that the both political systems have already political ideals that inform the practice and they
need to be improved based on their own political ideals so yes I mean we can
use western style elections as a standard for improvement in the West and we can use Chinese style political democracy as a standard for improvement in China always recognizing is a big gap between the idea and the reality and we should strive to minimize that Gap but the question is what standards should we use contrary to the universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the view that's so dominant and dogmatic in Western countries we should allow for diversity diverse ways of selecting and promoting public officials it depends on a country's well size for one thing on a
country's dominant political culture on dominant on levels of economic development these are all important
issues and we should offer plural ways of selecting leaders and not dogmatically assert that there's only one way of selecting leaders again it's not a problem in China I think that most Chinese intellectuals at least in my experience are recognize that there should be plural ways of selecting
leaders you know I haven't heard anybody who says that China any style polygamous toxic should be you know blindly exported outside of China to other countries regardless of culture and so
on but in the west it's still a problem where people still think that that the
so-called well I'm not going to say so-called western style elections is the only more legitimate way of selecting
leaders we should allow for legitimate variation here Hey where's another area where plurality is so important to
respect and I I make this point because it's on the one hand it's obvious on the one hand it's not obvious because it's
typically not it's the form plurality it's not typically respected here's another one
on the way of organizing economic life again if you read The Economist
um or the financial times or the Wall Street Journal typically speaking there's a view that there's only one
morally legitimate way of organizing the economy and that's a kind of capitalist form of life uh capitalist form of
economy where the right to property is respected and it's held to be fundamental well okay maybe in some
countries but other countries including China are strongly committed to socialist
ideals were that which were the strong priority of garment is to alleviate poverty now again it's both socialist idea that was not only socialists I mean the confusions ever since the early days including Confucius
you know Konza himself you know said that the first priority of government you know should be full you know basically to make people to provide for people's basic material needs and only then do you educate them Joe you know
these these this view is very has a very long history in China and it's not a
coincidence that the Socialist ideals uh became dominant to China because they could build on this earlier Valley system where which prioritized the uh the need to alleviate uh poverty above other uh uh values including the need to respect private property
um now again China it's in the Constitution it's also committed to Communism as the ultimate end goal what
does that mean well again it it sounds bad if you're kind of American but the Communist ideal is very beautiful ideal
it's the idea that Advanced Machinery does all this necessary labor so people are freed from the need to do a dirty
and unwanted labor and all humans have the equal opportunity to develop their
creative talents and not be bound by mind-dulling labor again it's a
beautiful idea and if it requires restricting private property to get
there then countries that are committed to socialism will do that I mean it's
not to say that we you know that countries should you know blindly uh take away people's property but sometimes when it comes to strong obligations to deal to alleviate poverty you know for example or land distribution might be necessary or to ultimately move on to a state where where Advanced communism or Advanced Machinery does all the necessary labor well then maybe there might be some legitimate restrictions on private property again we should allow for more legitimate variation I doubt that as it stands that communism can be Global ideal but it certainly can be an ideal that informs China's political system and other countries are just going to have to
recognize and live with that and recognize that there's a plural ways of thinking about how to organize economic
life well let me give one last example and this one is more comes from
countries that are often committed to Islam as a as a political form now again
the universal Declaration of Human Rights udhr strongly forms the freedom of religion in the way that it's manifested in contemporary Western societies
well yes I mean you know sometimes I agree that it's very important for people to have their freedom of religion
but it doesn't mean that all political communities everywhere should operate this should have exactly the same
distinction between you know private religion and public religion some political communities can legitimately
endorse the state religion and even Place constraints on the roles of other religions in public life and maybe even
on the freedom to change religious belief now I'm not saying that that's something that personally that I would
endorse but if countries that for example have a dominant Islamic value
system have policies along those lines or at least draw uh uh lines between what's
public and what's private in the religious sphere in ways that are different from Western societies well it's a form of morally legitimate
variation now I'm glad to report that in Western countries the the perhaps the
leading liberal philosopher John Rawls in his last work before he passed away
on the law of peoples he almost he recognized this point he said what
um he said that what he called is um he calls it decent article people
that respect basic human rights remember basic human rights rights Against torture and murder slavery genocide and
so on and I have we would also add some rights um uh to for the to provide basic
material well-being um but if those if countries or peoples organize themselves so that they have
played Constitutions are organized around a dominant religion whether it's Islam or another religion and even that
uh provides that only members of that religion are allowed to hold High political office well you know those
what he calls the Narco people should be tolerated by liberal societies when they
interact in the international Arena now my view is that it should be much more than Toleration it should be some sort
of mutual respect you know because sometimes we're Toleration English it sounds like you know you hold your nose and say okay I don't like what you guys
are doing but I'll I'll tolerate it you know just like you want it you might want to tolerate you know forms of well
anyway um but the point is that in the international sphere and I'm going to
summarize here before I conclude we should allow for morally legitimate variation when it comes to three
important things ways of selecting public officials and political leaders
ways of organizing economic life and ways of thinking about the role of
religion in politics and all of those three crucial areas there will not be
I'm almost certain common views and common values and we should allow for
morally legitimate variation I do think that if we have a world where we can endorse some common values like basic human rights against huge language of Human Rights rights Against torture murder slavery and genocide as well as positive rights rights for basic material well-being while respecting morally legitimate variation when it comes to ways of selecting political leaders ways of organizing the economy and ways of thinking about the role of religion in public life we would have a much more uh agreeable International order and one that allows us to solve problems so let me and here and I'm more than welcome
um critical views again these are ongoing ongoing disputes and probably 10 or 20 years from now we would have yet different views or maybe even within our discussion so let me in here thank you
wonderful can you hear me yeah I can hear you
thank you I'll turn off my right professor professor Bud thank you excellent uh I like to think I've I've listened to uh various speeches on this topic but I dare say that was probably one of the most enlightening and refreshing but also easy to understand uh so I'm hoping that uh this segment uh your speech will be wences conference is over we'll be listened to by hundreds of thousands even millions of people around the world so thank you so much and I was
particularly interested that you brought forward the ideas of how these
declarations were initiated in the first place uh particularly that uh if
indigenous populations have been included in the initial stages uh social harmony and protection of environment
would have taken on a very different role and then you talked about the the tyranny of vocabulary and particularly
what I call the tyranny of English uh the the in interpretation of things and
then to weaponize language in ways that almost we can't have any more conversations and I particularly also
like this your your three points the how do we select people uh the ways in which
we organize our societies and therefore economies and the role of beliefs religious beliefs and customs in in our
societies uh thank you very much I like you as I've said before uh please uh uh
stay on and we'd like to invite you to participate in in the first panel okay thank you and thank you for the the
recommending my little book too thank you so much
评论
目前还没有任何评论
登录后才可评论.
