生產正義與分配正義：論孫善豪教授「所有應然的問題都可以化為實然的問題」之說進一解

本文對孫善豪教授主張的「所有應然的問題都可以化為實然的問題」之說提供一個詮釋。孫善豪教授於2012年受邀到國立中山大學參與「我們能否討論正義」的工作坊，並提出了一個悖於常識的主張：亦即，正義是個實然的問題。該主張與當代英美分析政治哲學所接受的實然與應然的區分相悖；正義的問題，至少在英美主流的討論中，就是個應然的問題。遺憾的是，這個論題在孫善豪教授逝世後便有待詮釋。本文旨在為孫善豪教授的主張進行詮釋及辯護，藉由參考孫教授已經出版的文章和編譯作品，一篇訪談稿和一本未曾出版但由孫善豪編譯的馬克思著作文選，來建構一個完整的論述。本文先將應然和實然的區分說明清楚，並點出「正義是個實然問題」應該被理解為方法論上的主張。接著本文將藉由三條進路：馬克思的唯物史觀，科學與烏托邦社會主義的區分，以及馬克思的正義觀（包括了共產主義的討論），這三個部份來闡明何謂「正義作為一個實然的問題」。據此，本文補充並完備孫善豪教授尚未完成的立論，彰顯孫教授在台灣政治思想史上的貢獻與成就。

This article provides an interpretation of Professor Shan-Hao Sun's statement that“All‘Ought’Questions can be turned into‘Is’Questions”. In 2012, Professor Sun was invited to the National Sun Yat-sen University to participate in the workshop on‘Can we talk about justice’, where he made a counterintuitive claim that justice is an‘Is’issue. The statement runs counter to the distinction between‘ought’and‘is’widely accepted in contemporary Anglo-American analytical political philosophy, and the question of justice, at least in mainstream Anglo-American discourse, is a question of what we ought to do. Unfortunately, this topic has remained unexplored since the death of Professor Shan-Hao Sun in 2017. The paper aims to interpret and defend Professor Sun's claim by constructing a comprehensive account with reference to his published articles, edited works, an interview transcript, and an unpublished anthology of Karl Marx's writings that has been circulated among his students. First, it clarifies the distinction between‘ought’and‘is’, and I argued that the idea that‘justice is an‘Is’issue’should be understood as a methodological claim. The paper then proceeds to explain what is meant by‘justice is an‘Is’issue’via three lines: Marx's theory of Historical Materialism, the distinction between scientific and utopian socialism, and Marx's conception of justice (which includes his discussion of communism). Accordingly, this paper complements and completes Professor Sun's unfinished thesis and highlights his contributions and achievements in the history of Taiwan political thoughts.