論制度與規範理論之關係：以分離權之方法論爭辯為例

On the Relationship Between Normative Theories and Institutions: A Lesson Learned from the Methodological Debate on Rights of Secession

本文藉由分離權的方法論爭辯，批判制度推論。我檢視Sangiovanni的主張，並考慮分離權論辯裡Buchanan與Lefkowitz支持制度論的理由。本文主張Sangiovanni對非制度論之理解有誤。當吾人對其理解正確，就會贊同非制度論也能解決知識不確定性。此外，因為制度論者對整體論的要求無法在概念層次成立，也無法證明其理論結果總是在可行性上勝過非制度論。反之，非制度推論能克服制度論內生的道德損失與現狀偏差。雖然非制度論可能在判斷原則之適用上有過度自由心證的疑慮，但其本身能推導出「無可避免性」、「最低道德限度」、「制度化效果」三個條件限制判斷的使用、杜絕該疑慮。本文因此結論，規範性政治理論家沒有方法上的必然採取制度式推論，非制度推論反而更適合規範性政治理論。

This article revisits the reasons for institutionalism as a (practice-dependent) method of normative political theory by examining the similar debate on rights of secession. Seeing non-institutionalism (i.e. practice-independent approaches) as rival, institutionalists proclaims that theorists should prioritise using institutionalism because it can address epistemic uncertainty successfully, deliver complete and high feasible principles for action due to holistic reasoning, and avoid theorists’subject judgement. I argue that, learning from the methodological debate in secession theories, these three reasons all fail to support the claim. Theorists are not necessarily required to use institutionalism to construct normative political theories because, shown by non-institutionalists in secession theory, practice-independent methods can address epistemic uncertainty. Also, holistic reasoning is unnecessary for political theory given that the idea of institutional concept is context dependent. Institutionalism does not even demand high feasibility but just makes sure the principles compatible with extant practices. Non-institutionalism would not deny such compatibility for regulative principles. Non-institutionalists could also counter the charge of subject judgement by conforming to the inevitability, the moral threshold, and the consequentialist conditions. Finally, the problems of moral remainder and status bias often taint institutionalism, making theorists hesitant to prioritise the method for theorising.