共同善權利觀的力度與限度

The Strength and Limitation of Rights Based on Common Good

拉茲的共同善權利觀試圖超越義務論與功利主義的對抗，從而為權利理論找到一條新路。根據共同善權利觀，權利的重要性超過了權利人利益的重要性，權利可證成其他人對權利人的義務，但權利人的利益則無法做到這一點。這一權利觀的最終目標是指出權利存在的價值在於它對共同善的貢獻，共同善是決定權利存在的最重要的理由。但是，這一權利觀並不能有意義地證成自由權的存在，既無法揭示權利人中心權利觀的政治哲學意涵，也無法解釋權利保護的嚴格性與權利行使的正確性之間存在的不匹配。更重要的是，自由權與共同善的關係是非常複雜的，不僅眾多的共同善是相衝突的，而且共同善對權利也不是單向的、必然的支持關係。權利保護的嚴格性，並不來自抽象意義上的共同善，而是來自對相衝突的不同共同善的衡量。這一點為理解我國《民法總則》第185條中“公共利益”的涵義與功能提供了一個融貫的解釋，而這一條規定也正好展現了共同善權利觀的力度與限度。

Raz's theory of rights based on common good tries to transcend the confrontation between Deontology and Utilitarianism so as to find a new way for the theory of rights. According to the view of rights from common good, the importance of rights is more important than the interests of the rightholder, and the rights can justify the duty of others to the rightholder, but the interests of the rightholder cannot do so. The ultimate aim of this view of rights is to point out that the value of the existence of right lies in its contribution to the common good, and the common good is the most important reason for the existence of the rights. But this theory of rights does not justify the existence of the rights of freedom availably, is unable to reveal the implications of political philosophy of rightholder-centred theories of rights, and cannot explain the mismatch between the correctness of the exercise of rights and the stringency of the protection of rights. More importantly, the relationship between the rights of freedom and the common good is very complicated. Not only are a lot of common goods conflicting, but there is not a one-way and inevitable supportive relationship between the common good and rights. The stringency of the protection of rights does not come from the common good in the abstract, but from the balance of the different common goods in conflict This provides a coherent explanation for understanding the meaning and function of 'public interest' in the 185th article of General Rules of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, and this article just shows the strength and the limitation of the common good approach.