政哲茶記 The Political Philosophy Cha Chaan Teng

上集提到德國大哲哈伯馬斯嘅溝通理性和商議式民主等概念，今集講吓近年Google DeepMind進行嘅「哈伯馬斯機器」（Habermas Machine）研究，測試生成式 AI 可唔可以令選民更能進行理性討論，凝聚共識，從而反思 AI 與民主嘅關係。Continuing last episode's introduction the late Jürgen Habermas and his theory of deliberative democracy, this episode discusses Google DeepMind's intriguing experiment on the "Habermas Machine", a generative AI that aims to facilitate rational deliberation and consensus building. From this, this episode also reflects on the relationship between AI and democracy.參考書目 References：Tessler, M. H. et al. (2024) "AI can help humans find common groundin democratic deliberation." Science 386:289. Volpe, Alessandro. "Toward an artificial deliberation? On Google DeepMind’s Habermas Machine." Ethics and Information Technology 27:45.李立峯。〈AI可以促進公共討論？ 談「哈伯馬斯機器」〉，《明報》，2026年3月12日，http://reurl.cc/K2jvRq。鄒崇銘。〈哈伯馬斯機器、公共領域與人類的可能〉，棱角媒體，2026年3月16日，https://points-media.com/%E7%94%9F%E6%B4%BB/%E3%80%90%E9%84%92%E5%B4%87%E9%8A%98%E3%80%91%E5%93%88%E4%BC%AF%E9%A6%AC%E6%96%AF%E6%A9%9F%E5%99%A8%E3%80%81%E5%85%AC%E5%85%B1%E9%A0%98%E5%9F%9F%E8%88%87%E4%BA%BA%E9%A1%9E%E7%9A%84%E5%8F%AF%E8%83%BD/。

今集淺談義戰論（ Just War Theory）同關於人道干預（ humanitarian intervention）嘅政治哲學討論。究竟戰爭咩情況先合乎正義？咩情況之下先可以用軍事手段干預另一個國家？如果一個國家嘅動機不純，咁又有冇問題呢？今集嘅討論會集中喺義戰論嘅經典著作，Michael Walzer嘅《Just and Unjust Wars》。Today's episode discusses Just War Theory especially in relation to the topic of humanitarian intervention. What are the conditions of a just war? When can a country legitimately intervene militarily into another country? What if a country's intentions and motives are "impure"? We will discuss all these with reference to Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars, a classic on the topic.參考書目 References：Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Basic Books, 1977.Tan, Kok-chor. What Is This Thing Called Global Justice? Routledge, 2017.

大埔火災令人痛心，亦令人意識到，無論人如何努力，世界其實從來都係冇辦法受完全控制，總有一啲無法預料無法想像嘅天災人禍隨時降臨。今集介紹德國哲學家 Hartmut Rosa 嘅著作《世界的不可控性》(The Uncontrollability of the World），現代文明總係想「征服」不可控嘅世界，但係咁樣只會令人與世界產生疏離，亦令世界變得更不受控。所以 Rosa 認為，人應該嘗試同世界重新建立互相共鳴（resonance）嘅關係。The heartbreaking blaze at Tai Po reminds everyone that despite our best efforts, the world is inherently uncontrollable. German philosopher Hartmut Rosa's The Uncontrollability of the World contends that modernity's urge to control the uncontrollable world creates radical alienation and makes the world even more uncontrollable. Hence, Rosa thinks we should aim to establish a relation of resonance with the world.參考書目 References：Rosa, Hartmut. The Uncontrollability of the World. Translated by James C. Wagner. Polity Press, 2020.

**更正：今集提到嘅荷蘭應係「丹麥」**其中一個最常見嘅反移民論述就係話移民（或者太多移民）冇辦法融入「主流文化」。究竟政治哲學對移民與融入有咩討論？移民點解要融入，又要融入成點樣？接收移民嘅國家又可以做啲咩去促進移民融入或者保護自身文化？**Corrections: The episode mentions "the Netherlands". It should be "Denmark" instead.**A common reason to reject immigration is that immigrants (or too many of them) cannot "integrate" into the "mainstream" culture. What is the relevant discussion in political theory like? Why should an immigrant integrate, and what does "integration" look like? What can the host country do or not do to foster integration or to protect its own "national culture"?參考書目 References：Carens, Joseph. The Ethics of Immigration. Oxford University Press, 2013.Blake, Michael. "Are Citizenship Tests Necessarily Illiberal?" Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22, no. 2 (2019): 313–29.

今集終於講羅爾斯同佢1971年首次出版嘅大作《正義論》，講吓羅爾斯點解會被視為以一人之力重新振興英美政治哲學嘅巨擘，然後講吓《正義論》提出嘅核心內容，例如咩係「正義即公平」，同埋佢提出嘅「無知之幕」係做緊啲乜。點解思考正義要「忘記所有」？We are finally discussing the great John Rawls and his magnus opus, A Theory of Justice. We will talk about why Rawls was seen to be the influential figure who revived the study of Anglo-American political philosophy, as well as the core ideas in TJ, such as "justice as fairness" and "veil of ignorance". Why does Rawls we have to "forget everything" in order to think about justice?參考書目 References：Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition, Belknap Press, 1999.

承接上集嘅討論，今集主要會藉由〈Lottocracy Versus Democracy〉呢篇文章入手，探討選舉究竟喺民主制度起乜嘢作用。作者 Rummens 同 Ginnens 指出，選舉有助促進討論、表達授權，以至令選舉「輸家」更有動機接受選舉結果。Continuing from last episode, this episode discusses the article "Lottocracy Versus Democracy" and explores the values and functions of elections in a democratic system. Authors Rummens and Ginnens argue that elections are better than sortition in encouraging political deliberation, expressing authorisation, and providing stronger motivation for "losers" to obey election results.參考書目 References：Schumpeter, Joseph. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper & Brothers, 1942.Rummens, Stefan, and Raf Geenens. “Lottocracy Versus Democracy.” Res Publica 31, no. 2 (2025): 339-57.(Edits: sound effects)

私有產權係西方政治同法律哲學裏面嘅重要概念，但係政治哲學家對佢嘅睇法可以有天淵之別。洛克認為私有產權係上帝畀人類嘅重要權利，但係盧梭反而覺得發明私有產權嘅人係歷史罪人，點解會咁？今集會主要討論洛克、諾齊克同盧梭對私有產權同分配正義嘅睇法。Private property right is a core concept in Western political and legal philosophy. While Locke argues that property right is one of the most important rights given to us by God, Rousseau thinks whoever invented the concept is a sinner. Why is that? We will discuss private property right and distributive justice with regards to the works of Locke, Nozick, and Rousseau.

自由係（西方）政治哲學嘅重要概念，咁但係政治哲學家究竟點樣理解自由？今集會簡單介紹三種對自由嘅理解，分別係消極自由（negative freedom）、積極自由（positive freedom），同埋德國哲學家霍耐特（Axel Honneth）近年提出嘅社會自由（social freedom）。Freedom is a core concept in (Western) political philosophy. How is freedom understood in political philosophy? This episode briefly introduces three different conceptions of freedom, namely negative freedom, positive freedom, and social freedom, an idea proposed more recently by German philosopher Axel Honneth.參考書目 References：Berlin, Isaiah. "Two Concepts of Liberty." In Four Essays of Liberty, Oxford University Press, 1969.Honneth, Axel. Freedom's Right: The Social Foundations of Democratic Life. Translated by Joseph Ganahl. Columbia University Press, 2014.

承接上一集嘅總論，今集講一個政治哲學的方法論（methodology）問題：究竟政治哲學應唔應該「離地」？政治哲學應該點樣處理「政治現實」嘅問題？一個「冇可能」實現嘅理論，究竟又有冇價值？This episode explores a methodological question in political philosophy, namely: how "idealistic" or "realistic" should political theory be? My discussion will be focused on the works of Bernard Williams and David Estlund.參考書目 References：Estlund, David. Utopophobia: On the Limits (If Any) of Political Philosophy. Princeton University Press, 2020.Williams, Bernard. In the Beginning Was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument. Princeton University Press, 2005.(Edits: Post-publication refinement.)