The Ethic of Care

I. Introduction
Feminism is a belief in the right of woman to have political, social and economic equality with man. It is a discourse that encompasses various movements, theories, and philosophies. The subject matters ranges from gender difference, advocate equality for woman to campaign for woman’s rights and interests. The chronology of feminist movement divides into three stages. The seed was first planted in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the movement deepened during the period 1960 to 1980 and the third stage extended from the 1990 to the present. Contemporary feminist political theory diversifies in both scopes and convictions. There are liberal feminism, Marxist feminism and libertarian feminism etc. However, the conviction to eliminate the subordination of woman unites the different strands of feminist theory
II. The Ethics of Care
The ethics of care is a normative ethical theory developed by feminists in the second half of the twentieth century. It was initially inspired by the work of psychologist Carol Gilligan.
Gilligan maintained that the history of ethics in the Western culture emphasized the justice view of morality because tradition had it cultivated and steered by man. And woman was traditionally taught a different kind of moral that focused on caring about one’s relationship and community.
The feminists labeled the ethical views such as utilitarianism and deontology or Kantian ethics a “justice view” of morality. The feminists care-focused theory proposes a paradigm shift in ethics encourages that an ethic of caring be the social responsibility of both man and woman. Gilligan maintained that these two “moral projects” are “fundamentally incompatible”.
III. A Psychological Experiment - Carol Gilligan
The traditional patriarchal system naturally evolved man to exercise influence and control over woman. The division of public and domestic spheres surely affected the different modes of thought and feeling between man and woman. For this, Carol Gilligan conducted a psychological research and she published her findings in her book titled “In a different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development” in 1982.
Gilligan’s research was, in essence, a psychological experiment. She assimilated a scene to put a boy and a girl caught in between a moral dilemma. The scene was that a man went to a drugstore to purchase medicine for his ailing wife. Upon arrival at the drugstore, the man found that the price of the medicine was beyond his means. Now the question is: Should he steal the medicine? When confronted this question, the 11 years old boy gave an affirmative answer and said the man should steal the medicine for his wife. The boy maintained that life is important and the man got to steal the medicine because it was a matter of life or death. And the loss of the pharmacist could be compensated by making profits on other customers. When confronted the same scene, an 11 year old girl was hesitant. She considered that the man should not steal the medicine. She maintained that the wife might be cured or saved by the medicine. The man might be caught and ended up behind bars and, thus, could not look after his wife.
It was evident that the boy deployed certain principles to ascertain its feasibility and hence derived his line of thought. He displayed the ability to think in the basis of principle. The girl considered the situation in terms of maintaining (not to dissociate in entirety) relationship with the pharmacist. Gilligan, thus, raised the issue that the moral emotion of man and woman differ. Man tends to be rational and fair and Gilligan termed this as “ethic of justice”. And, on the other hand, woman inclines to act according to instinct and emotion. Gilligan termed this as “ethic of care”.
IV. Different Moral Voices
Gilligan’s “fundamentally incompatible” findings (different moral voices) can be classified as:
(a.) Moral capacities: developing disposition (care) Vs learning principles (justice)
Contemporary theorists tends to focus more on “the best principles” rather than “how will individual act morally?”. Therefore, it is imperative that one can accurately interpret other people’s need is the key capacity.
The justice theorists concerns on ascertaining principles on the basis that moral capacities are to be derived as a natural sequence upon the formation of principles. They do not prioritize moral capacities because the sense of justice is derived from care which in turn begins at home. However, feminists consider that a gendered family is not just, hence, the foundation of just is in doubt. Yet, the justice theorists rarely face the issue at all.
(b.) Moral reasoning: response (care) Vs react (justice)
The care theorists maintain that people must deploy moral imagination, traits and behavior to address particular situation. We may not deploy general principle to explain moral. Particular situation deserves appropriate attention.
Naturally, not all the situations are related to morality. So, we have to exercise judgment. At this juncture, the question of moral principle emerge instead the question of moral emotion. Care theorists agree to turn to principle to adjudicate conflicts than to work out solutions to overcome them.
Kymlicka disagrees with the care theorists and maintains that even if we can accommodate “demand”, it is appropriate to provoke a conflict in order to make clear our stance.
(c.) Moral concepts: responsibilities & relationship (care) Vs rights & fairness (justice)
When it comes to principles, our focus is not we need principles or not but rather what kind of principles that can best serve the purpose. For this, let’s closely examine the following three different moral concepts:
(i.) Universality Vs particularity
Justice and care tends to different targets. The former emphasizes on impartiality and the latter aims at preserving the “web of on-going relationships”. As Gilligan puts it “morality is founded in a sense of concrete connection between persons….”. If interpreted this way, the care ethic runs the risk of excluding the most needy if the web is “small”. If the web is “big”, it generalizes. And also, care theorists may have difficulties in explaining how one is motivated to help strangers. When care ethic claims that “each person is connected to us by virtue of being another person”, then it is apparent that the care theorists are too adhered to the principle of universality.
(ii.) Respect for common humanity Vs respect for distinct individuality
The justice theorists concern with the generalized other while the care theorists focus on the distinct individual.
John Rawls’s “original position” in which people are blinded by “the veil of ignorance” clearly justifies the “generalized other” and neglects the “concrete other”. It is under such conditions, we can think and act as “free and equal” persons and “justice as fairness” can be achieved.
However, Susan Okin argues that “…we need as well a great commitment to benevolence, to caring about each other and every other as much as as about ourselves.”
(iii.) Rights Vs responsibilities
Gilligan’s research reveals that “subjectively-felt hurt appears immoral to woman whether or not it is fair” whereas man “tends to evaluate as immoral only objective unfairness – regardless of whether an act creates subjective hurt”.
The justice theorists stress on claiming rights while the care theorists emphasizes on accepting responsibilities. But the care theorists think that when a person is subjectively-felt hurt, he is entitled to expect others to take good care of him and his benefits. Just theorists disagree with this standpoint. Justice theorists maintain that one is to be held for complete responsibility for own benefits. Just theorists hold that for the reason of fairness, it is just to expect man to be able to take care of some (if not all) of his benefits.
The example of John, a man of no self-control and borrows money from his friend, Tom. According to the ethic of justice, Tom expects that his act of lending John money is non-responsible. But according to the ethic of care, if Tom does not lend John money, Tom is inflicting subjective harm on John. Thus, Tom is obliged to take care of John. But there are two draw backs with the care theory. Firstly, it is not only unfair to bring up subjective hurt as a reason for moral demand, but also covers up suppression. It is because the suppressed will always tries to adjust ones likes and dislikes and feeling no harm at all. Secondly, this theory does not demand oneself to shoulder much responsibility, but demands others to carry the maximum loads.
V. Issues at hand
To put things in a nut shell, the justice and care models develop under different circumstances. These two models cannot cover all our moral obligations. We can say that the ethic of care applies to our relations with dependants, while the ethics of justice applies to relations amongst “free and equal” adults. The distribution of care itself is an issue of justice. Justice theorists tend to believe that some people (women) will desire to care for others.
If we do just pop out of the earth like mushroom, then there is no problem to assume that we are responsible for our ends. But when we include the care and responsibility to dependants within the scope of justice, things become more complicated. John Rawls rejects the view that subjective hurt is the standard of moral claims.
On the other hand, the assumption that subjective hurts give rise to moral claims is plausible to the extent that we generalize from the caring relationships involved in child-rearing. A baby is not at all responsible for its needs, and cannot be expected to attend to its parent’s welfare.
As we all know, the world is not composed of only able-bodied adults, therefore, the justice approach is wanting for the real world that we are in.
VI. Conclusion
In summing up, the entire elimination of sexual inequality not only requires the redistribution of domestic labour, but also a breakdown in the sharp distinction between public and domestic. This inevitably lead to certain activities or practices of care should be seen as an obligation a citizen.
Lastly, any adequate and sufficient theory of sexual equality must address the issue: to meet our responsibilities for dependent others without forsaking our autonomy and the notions of responsibility and justice that make it possible!

羅爾斯的原初境況與兩個正義原則

一．引言
【正義論】是美國哈佛大學教授約翰、羅爾斯 (John Rawls) 在1971年出版的政治哲學著作。這書的問世引致熱烈討論，有如一石擊起千層浪，令到當時平淡而冷清的政治哲學局面轉向蓬勃發展。及後，許多政治哲學理論：自由主義，效益主義，社群主義，文化多元主義，女性主義等等的建構都以回應羅爾斯的理論為先。【正義論】一書，實際上是一本論文集，羅爾斯在前言中表示：“在提出關於正義的理論時，我試圖把過去十數年中我所撰寫的論文中的思想集中起來，使它們成為一種條理分明的觀點。
【正義論】顧名思義是研討正義的。正義觀念在人類的社會發展史有著重要的地位，正如羅爾斯說：“正義是社會體制的第一美德，有如真實是思想體系的第一美德一樣。”羅爾斯把正義觀的規定視為社會發展的基石。
【正義論】標示著西方政治哲學主題從“自由”到“正義”的重大變換。洛克、盧梭和康德強調的是“自由”，而羅爾斯強調的是“正義”。羅爾斯使社會契約在當時得以重生。他認為契約論是否有經驗事實支持並不重要，他所提出的“原初境況”是否真實存在也無所謂，原因在於規範並不在於事實。他所提出的原初境況祇是一個契約情境，從而推論出公平式的正義 (justice as fairness) 和兩個正義原則 - 自由原則和差異原則 (the liberty principle and the difference principle)。
【正義論】一書分三篇九章，每篇三章。第一篇“理論”：討論對正義的界定，正義的歷史發展，正義的內涵與及原初境況等觀點。第二篇“體制”：分析如何用第一篇確定的正義原則來剖析社會政治制度。第三篇“目的”：探討倫理和道德領域中的課題。
二．原初境況

羅爾斯提出只有在一個公平的契約環境下，得到立約者一致同意，所達成的原則才能夠被所有立約者接受。為此、羅爾斯提出一個模擬的契約環境，他稱之為原初境況 (original position)，立約者被一層無知之幕 (veil of ignorance)遮去了所有關於他們個人的資料，這包括：天賦能力，階級及社會地位，各自特定的人生觀。立約者卻容許知道一些有關社會運作的一般事實，立約者同時被定性為理性及自利的。立約者處於無知之幕之下，不知道那些原則對自己特別有利。因此，也就沒有人能夠使原則遷就自己的利益，任何人都不能夠提出為促進自己的利益而專門設計的原則。立約者均知道離開這原初境況之後，各自按在無知之幕之下所立之約而生活。為了使自己的利益得到公正待遇，立約者只有讓所有的可能性都得到公平的待遇。
羅爾斯認為，原初境況及無知之幕的設計可令到最後得出的原則是一個公平的協議。他稱這理論為：公平式的正義。羅爾斯對社會 (society) 和人有一個獨特的觀念，他界定社會是一個合作，在裡面合作的個人均是自由及平等的人 (cooperation – a fair system of cooperation between free and equal people)。他們進行公平的社會合作，從中他們都能各自獲益。羅爾斯認定這種社會合作就是一個公義的社會，他把自由和公平的人 (free and equal people) 介定為有下述兩種能力之人。其一為：道德能力 (a capacity for the conception of the good)。人能建構自己的人生觀、價值觀。其二為：人是有正義感 (a capacity for a sense of justice)。人不單是一個自利者，人是有能力進行理性道德思考，並能服從道德原則。羅爾斯所說的自由和公平 (free and equal) 是直接指向這兩種能力，人若沒有這兩種能力、亦意味著人是不能服從正義原則。
羅爾斯指出祇有在原初境況中，所有立約者都是自由並且是平等的。由於大家都是自由且彼此之間是平等的，所以這個出發點對大家都是公平的，沒有人可以取得比別人有利的地位。由於境況的公平，立約者所贊同的原則就是正義的，公平式的正義。
原初境況不單存有公平式的正義，更導致程序性正義 (procedural justice)。因為我們不知道怎樣的分配才是正義的。故此、正義的概念就祇能訴諸於純粹的程序正義了。程序性正義可分如下三類：
(a) 完美的程序 (perfect procedural fairness)
已知甚麼結果是正義，並且有一確定方法達到。
例如分西瓜，持刀切瓜者後挑。
(b) 不完美的程序 (imperfect procedural justice)
已知甚麼結果是正義，但技術上不能無誤地達成這結果。
例如司法審判。
(c) 純粹的程序 (pure procedural justice)
我們不知甚麼結果是正義，但卻可透過遵循一套公平的程序，無論得出甚麼結果都是正義的。
例如賭博。
三．正義原則
羅爾斯的兩個正義原則：
第一原則：
最大的均等自由原則 (the greatest equal liberty principle)：
每個人都有同樣基本權利 (equal right)去享有同樣的基本自由 (equal basic liberties)，而且大家的自由在程度上是相等的。一個人所擁有的自由要與他人擁有同等的自由能夠相容。
第二原則：
差異原則 (the difference principle)：
社會和經濟上的不平等必須滿足下列的原則：
(a)它們對每個人(對處身最不利地位的人)都是有利的 (the greatest benefit to the least advantaged)，並且
(b)它們是附隨著職位與工作的，而這些職位與工作是對所有人都是開放的 (fair equality of opportunity)。
這兩個正義原則是有優先次序的 (有如詞典式的優先次序)。第一原則未被滿足的情況下，不能去到第二原則。原則之間沒有交易折衷的可能。第一原則絕對優先於第二原則，個人基本自由不可以因為社會及經濟的整體較大利益而遭到限制及剝奪。羅爾斯所提的“詞典式序列 (in lexical order)”是一個頗具啟發性的觀念。他所論述的基本自由 (equal basic liberties)不是單數，而是眾數，不是一個，而是一批。第一個原則用於確定和保障公民的平等自由，第二個原則用於規定和建立社會及經濟不平等。前者包括公民的基本自由權等原則，後者則適用於收入和財富的分配，這種不平等分配應對每一個人有利。【正義論】的最大特點是能強調個人權利的優先性，容許個人有極大的自由，亦能照顧到社會資源的公平平等分配。
羅爾斯注意到人們存在自然資源的差異，從而影響最初分配。因此，他認為：“沒有理由要讓歷史和社會命運來決定收入和財富的分配，同樣也沒有理由要讓自然資產的分配來決定收入和財富的分配。”這就是差異原則體現的一種協議。
四．從原初境況如何推出兩個正義原則
羅爾斯提出他的論證是繼承盧梭，諾克和康德的契約論傳統方法來論證得出最合理的原則。契約人涉及雙方或多方共同商討在某條件下參與合作，契約人同意一些原則來規範大家的生活，契約者都願意服從一些同意原則，這是頗為根本的共識。
但羅爾斯的看法則較為複雜，他指出社會是一個公平的合作。參與契約者是如何能處於一個公平的狀態而達成協議的呢？他以一群人在荒島上商討如何共同生活之例說明，通常參與契約者商討後的結果都是議價能力的體現。議價能力高者能獲得更多及較大的利益。羅爾斯指出這樣的協議是不公平的。在不公平的情況下商討是徒勞無功的，就算能達成契約，這樣的契約也是不公平不公正的，因它們只是體現出權力的關係及其多少而矣！此外，羅爾斯指出一旦權力改變，必然導致契約的改變，原則不斷被推翻。因為，契約者不是基於道德原則去服從或履行契約的條款，而是被迫接受，這樣的社會是不和諧不穩定的。
羅爾斯提出一個模擬的契約環境名之為“原初境況”(OP)，立約者進入此環境被一層無知之幕遮去了有關個人資料如：能力，社會地位，特定人生價值等。在這樣的一個處境下開始商討定立一套原則來規範每人在離開OP後的社會合作關係。這原則將會主持社會秩序、分配資源、收入和財富、權力及義務等。羅爾斯假設我們是立約者之一，該當如何作出明智的抉擇？羅爾斯更說明在無知之幕裡我們是自私的，不顧他人的利益。有何方法能保障我們離開OP後能有最大的好處呢？羅爾斯指出，假若我們是理性的話，在契約之始就會力主平均分配 (equal distribution)，平均分配是對自己最為有利。
接著，羅爾斯指出這樣不一定是最好的安排。因為離開OP後，我們都知道人人天賦不一樣，生產力明顯有差異。若平均分配的話，人們便沒有動力去各盡所能來貢獻社會。
為了要獎勵多勞多得，人盡其材，以造福社會令每個人的好處都增加的話，我們可以考慮容許能力高的人多獲好處，我們可以附加條款說明在能力高者多獲好處的前題下，最弱勢的社群都能獲得最大的好處。若此，社會較弱勢者也沒有理由不接受如此的條款。這就是差異原則！這樣的安排確保弱者也能得到最大的好處。差異原則的精粹是不平等是可以的，但條件是必須對社會最弱勢的人最有利，這樣的安排對社會上每人皆有利。這樣的差異安排是比平均分配更好，其原因在於對每人均有好處。羅爾斯指出我們若接受此一邏輯就會得出差異原則。
若我們提出為什麼“自由”不可以“不平等”分配呢？羅爾斯指出自由與財富收入是兩者不同性質的價值 (two different types of value)。假若我們不能有均等的自由就不能實現及發展出道德能力及正義感了。
無知之幕主要保障在OP裡面的公平立約處境在公平狀態來討論，每人皆有否決權以體現出自由與平等的精神。這情境得出的原則是公平的，故謂之公平式的正義。正義在於體現公平，公平在於每一個人都是平等的公民。
五．反對意見的檢視與回應
【正義論】的面世受到學術界不同學科的重視和關注。哲學，法律，政治，經濟等學系均採用為教科書。很多不同學派理論家和學者均以回應或批評羅爾斯的正義原則來建構自己的理論。這些學派有：新自由主義，效益主意，馬克斯主義，女性主義，社群主義和文化多元主義等。因此，羅爾斯在【正義論】出版後的20多年間，花了很長時間和精力回應來自四方八面的批評和挑戰。這些學者包括來自哈佛同寅有：新自由主義者的諾齊克 (Robert Nozick)，馬克思主義者的華爾夫 (Robert Paul Wolff)，女性主義者的歐金明 (Susan Moller Okin) 和分析馬克思政治哲學家G.A.Cohen 等。
(a)諾齊克Robert Nozick (1939-2002)
【正義論】問世後就受到自由主義內部和外部的批判。以諾齊克為首的自由至上主義 (libertarianism)對羅爾斯提出了尖銳的批評。諾齊克指出資本主義值得擁護，不是其有效率，而是因為它最能保障每個人的基本權利，是人類所能渴求的最好的“烏托邦”。在現實政治層面上，他為80年代興起的里根(Ronald Reagan) 及撒切爾夫人 (Margaret Thatcher) 的新右派主義提供理論根據。
諾齊克與羅爾斯的主張南轅北轍。前者主張小政府，大市場，後者主張政府扮演更積極的角色，對社會資源進行再分配，建立一個更為平等的社會。
在社會合作方面，羅爾斯認為，分配是正義問題，由於社會合作產生利益的一致性，合作比不合作好。但諾齊克卻認為在完全沒有社會合作的情況下正義問題仍然存在，不論如何變化，權利原則都是使用的。羅爾斯強調縮小差別，從而保證政治生活的穩定性。諾齊克則堅持差別是一種個人資源，是一種不可剝奪和侵犯的私有權利。
羅爾斯認為人的天賦從道德觀點是任意的，不是每個人“應得”的，故此社會只能通過後天的正義安排即按差別原則來增大較差者的利益，從而減輕天賦對分配的影響，個人天賦被看成是集體資產。但諾齊克卻提出截然不同的看法。他認為，天賦是個人的權利，個人如何處置天賦完全是自由的。
(b) 華爾夫Robert Paul Wolff(1933 - )
華爾夫於1977年出版了“理解羅爾斯”一書 (Understanding Rawls)，華氏對馬克斯主義有專門研究。在他的著作中，華爾夫曾言：“廣而論之，羅爾斯的失誤出自……他僅研究分配而不問生產，由此，分配的真正基礎被遮蔽了……。”另外，華爾夫對羅爾斯理論的一個嚴重指責它是一個烏托邦的，即它對現有的不正社會如何過渡到一個秩序良好的社會(正義社會)未能予以適當說明。
羅爾斯對華爾夫有關僅研究分配而不問生產的指控可能會回應指出“分配與生產”實是互為表裡。況且，因為我們不知道怎樣的分配才是正義的，故此正義的概念就只能是純粹的程序正義。至於有關烏托邦如何過渡的責難，羅爾斯可能指出OP這一個公平的契約環境是否有經驗事實並不重要，是否真實存在也無所謂，原因在於規範並不在於事實。羅爾斯主張的是一種正義原則要在一個社會中通行，而不是一個烏托邦世界裡面包含有正義原則。
(c) 歐金明Susan Moller Okin (1946-2004)
女性主義者歐金明批評羅爾斯的矛盾立場源自“原初境況”假設中的父權制特徵。她指出羅爾斯最初假設的“無性別”立約者逐漸顯出真實的身份，他們原來不是“單個的個人”，而是“一家之主”或“家庭的代表”。在女性主義看來，這一假設實際陷入了公共領域與家庭領域的兩分法。更且，代表是“一家之主”，他們達成的協定就不可能是“一致同意”的，正義原則就會失去普遍的有效性。
羅爾斯面對女性主義的批評同意論述存在矛盾，他承認家庭是社會基本制度的“某種形成”。另一方面，他又認為正義原則只適用於“公共領域”中的基本制度。家庭屬於私人領域。不在正義的範圍之內。但在女性主義者看來，家庭的本質是公共的，政治領域的一部份。“個人的”與“政治的”沒有本質的區別。所以，羅爾斯在隨後發表的“作為公平的正義”中，為回應女性主義的批評，進一步闡述“家庭是基本結構的一個組成部分”，應該屬於正義範圍。這一立場與女性主義的正義要求是一致的。
(d) 科恩G.A. Cohen (1941)
科恩是一位分析馬克斯主義政治哲學家。他的一條經典的問題“如果你是平均主義者，何解你會那麼富有？”(If you’re an egalitarian, how come you’re so rich?)與他的同名著作是頗具爭議的。他的書指出儘管自由的平均主義可能表達正確的正義原則，這主義會任意和不一致地限定這些正義原則的範圍。
科恩指出羅爾斯的理論沒有給非制度性的社會條件足夠的重視，忽視了社會的道德，習俗和風氣。合乎社會正義的制度，一旦建立，是否可以長久？社會成員是否願意調整自己的動機結構？
羅爾斯會以他的社會作為“公平的合作體系”(fair system of cooperation) 來回應科恩的評論。在“公平的合作體系”裡，公民雖然是各司其職，但他們的工作，活動和生活構成一個整體，生產出更多好處 (advantage) 或價值(good)，從而增加他們各自的好處。由於這是一個互利 (mutual advantage) 的合作，所有參與並遵從相關規則和程序的人都會受益，故此社會成員都會有有效的正義感 (effective sense of justice)，因此他們都會遵從被視為正義社會基本制度從而建構出一個良序社會 (well ordered society)。在這樣的一個社會裡面，所有人都能公開地接受同樣的原則，亦清楚原則背後的證成理據，當紛亂出現，也有一共同標準作出裁決，因此能成為多元社會統一的基礎，從而確保社會穩定。此外，在人們接受一組道德原則作為規範時，他們會考慮到自己對這組原則應作出多少承擔 (commitment)，如果一組原則需要人們作出較多的付出，則它們能被接受的機會就會較小。就此而言，差異原則就顯示它的優越性，處於最不利地位的人當然樂意遵守，欣然接受。而處於較優越地位的人也理解他們之所以優越並非只是他們自身的努力，也是大家合作的結果，更且差異原則並未有要求為了別人的利益而作太多的自我犧牲，故此較優越者也欣然接受，樂於長久遵守被視為正義社會基本制度了。
(e) 皮弗R.G. Peffer (1952)
皮弗是一位美國“左翼”學者，政治哲學家。他出版了“馬克斯主義，道德與社會正義”。在這書中，皮弗列出了對羅爾斯十大批評：
(1) 羅爾斯的反思平衡與社會契約論的方法充滿了個人主義的假定。
(2) 在存在著階級分化的社會，人們不可能就羅爾斯的社會正義原則達成一致同意，因為任何這樣的”同意”都將起出一個階級或另一個階級“應承受的負擔”。
(3) 羅爾斯的理論不過是對“福利國家”資本主義的辯護。
(4) 羅爾斯的理論錯誤地假定社會的階級分化是不可避免的或至少是可以接受的。
(5) 羅爾斯的理論武斷堅持消極的自由權對所有其他社會正義的要求絕對優先性。
(6) 羅爾斯的理論假定大量的社會經濟不平等與嚴守自由的平等權利是相容的。
(7) 羅爾斯的理論錯誤地假定“差別原則”是充分平等主義。
(8) 羅爾斯的理論僅要求政治的民主而不要求社會和經濟領域的民主。
(9) 羅爾斯的理論只被應用於單個社會 (如單個的民族國家) 而不適用於整個世界。
(10) 羅爾斯沒有提出從不正義社會向正義社會轉變的途徑的理論。因此，他的整個道德與社會理論是烏托邦的。
皮弗的批評，與A.E.布坎南的十大批評，大同小異。他們批評羅爾斯的正義論：脫離社會生產來談論分配正義，陷入了資產階級個人主義，假定了社會階級存在的永恆性和兩個正義原則存有內在矛盾是烏托邦主義等等。
對於大部分的批評，羅爾斯都不厭其煩的引述原初境況的設計和兩個正義原則來加以辯解。羅爾斯於90年代的長篇論文：政治自由主義 (Political Liberalism) 和萬民法 (The Law of Peoples) 更對皮弗和布坎南予以完善的回應。在這些論文裡，羅爾斯列出自由主義正義的觀念的適用範圍，從原來的單個民族，國家擴大到國際社會中各民族，國家之間的關係，從而使其正義觀念國際化。
六．結語
我們處身香港有機構名為“平等機會委員會”。 港人對平等的概念有如某小學舉辦的運動會，數名學生參與一百公尺賽跑，祇要這些健兒在同一起點，沒有人偷步，裝備大致相同，哨子響起一齊起跑，這樣的安排在港人眼中是平等的。其實這樣的機會平等是最起碼的 (minimal) 平等，這是單薄的，低層次的機會平等。香港社會對平等的看法基本上如此。祇要沒有歧視，起點一樣，大家在市場自由競爭，結果有人就脫穎而出，從市場賺取到以億元計的厚利。有人卻競爭失敗，依靠綜援渡日。這樣的結果，在港人看來是沒有問題，是公正的 (just)。按港人的機會平等準則是不可及不應向成功商人抽重稅，奪取他們的競爭成果。我們亦以這樣的準則，得出政府不應再分配的論調。
但羅爾斯指出這樣的平等門檻就未免太低、太單薄了。就以先前學童賽跑來說，往深一想、就不難發現雖然在同一起跑點開始也不一定是平等的。試想有這樣的兩名學童；一是中產家庭孩子，另一則是天水圍綜援戶孩子，前者在豐盛環境之下成長，後者在欠缺中長大、營養缺乏兼病痛多多。可見兩人在未跑之前，中產家庭的孩子已佔儘優勢和先機。羅爾斯指出這是絕不平等的。羅爾斯指出，由於社會背境，家庭背境所造成的社會不平等是不合理，不公正的。他指出生於富裕之家祇不過是好運 (luck)。出生富裕和智商高者均是 luxury 而矣！這些不平等從道德的觀點看，是任意的 (arbitrary)及不應得的。它既非我們的選擇，亦非我們努力的結果，而只是純運氣使然，就像天上的自然博彩一樣。一個有天賦才能的人對於自己的才華不應該邀功，而一個天生愚魯之人亦不應該因此而受到懲罰，因為這並不是他們自己能夠負責的。
所以，當考慮每個人享有的優勢時，政府是可以作出改變。例如遺產稅可以調和財富的優勢和累積。政府是有責任盡可能將社會背境的差異造成的不平等減到最低。
羅爾斯認為一種正義原則要在一個社會中通行，關鍵就是人們能否接受並相信它，這就牽涉到道德心理學和正義感形成的問題。如果社會上沒有一種正義的心理和文化環境，一種正義原則就不可能被接受，這就是羅爾斯所說“正義即公平的相對穩定性。”羅爾斯是一位自由主義者，其核心思想附和社會再分配，贊成社會福利，主張拉近貧富懸殊。
最後，值得順道一書的是，羅爾斯在1971年，五十歲才出版正義論、英文書名A Theory of Justice。羅爾斯花了近二十年光景成書，他沒有將書命名為 The Theory of Justice，可見羅爾斯是一位嚴謹而謙遜的學者，他雖然花了長時間，千錘百煉，慎之又慎，醞釀經年才出版，他並未有傲視同儕而忽略其他理論出現的可能性。書名使用“A”而不用“The”，可見羅爾斯虛懷若谷，心胸廣闊且能接受他人意見。出書後的20年一直不斷回應別人的批評和意見，直到1993年和1999年才有第二本輸書“政治自由主義”和第三本書“萬民法”的出版。
羅爾斯的理論可說是超越時空，震驚西方政治哲學的力作，他的論述涉及到多個領域，從社會基本結構的正義到個人利益的個人正義。在這公平問題日益凸顯的今天越見得【正義論】之重要。

Magnititude 7.9 - Eastern Sichuan

at 2:28 pm on May 12
Richter scale 7.9 magnitude earthquake devastated a region of small cities and towns set amid steep hills north of Chengdu.

Blair speaking at Trimdon Labour Club in Sedgefield on May 10, 2007

I have come back here, to Sedgefield, to my constituency. Where my political journey began and where it is fitting it should end. Today I announce my decision to stand down from the leadership of the Labour Party. The Party will now select a new Leader. On 27 June I will tender my resignation from the office of Prime Minister to The Queen. I have been Prime Minister of this country for just over 10 years. In this job, in the world today, that is long enough, for me but more especially for the country. Sometimes the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down. It is difficult to know how to make this speech today. There is a judgment to be made on my premiership. And in the end that is, for you, the people to make. I can only describe what I think has been done over these last 10 years and perhaps more important why. I have never quite put it like this before. I was born almost a decade after the Second World War. I was a young man in the social revolution of the 60s and 70s. I reached political maturity as the Cold War was ending, and the world was going through a political, economic and technological revolution. I looked at my own country. A great country. Wonderful history. Magnificent traditions. Proud of its past. But strangely uncertain of its future. Uncertain about the future. Almost old-fashioned. All of that was curiously symbolized in its politics. You stood for individual aspiration and getting on in life or social compassion and helping others. You were liberal in your values or conservative. You believed in the power of the State or the efforts of the individual. Spending more money on the public realm was the answer or it was the problem. None of it made sense to me. It was 20th century ideology in a world approaching a new millennium. Of course people want the best for themselves and their families but in an age where human capital is a nation's greatest asset, they also know it is just and sensible to extend opportunities, to develop the potential to succeed, for all not an elite at the top. People are today open-minded about race and sexuality, averse to prejudice and yet deeply and rightly conservative with a small 'c' when it comes to good manners, respect for others, treating people courteously. They acknowledge the need for the state and the responsibility of the individual. They know spending money on our public services matters and that it is not enough. How they are run and organized matters too. So 1997 was a moment for a new beginning, for sweeping away all the detritus of the past. Expectations were so high. Too high. Too high in a way for either of us. Now in 2007, you can easily point to the challenges, the things that are wrong, the grievances that fester. But go back to 1997. Think back. No, really, think back. Think about your own living standards then in May 1997 and now. Visit your local school, any of them round here, or anywhere in modern Britain. Ask when you last had to wait a year or more on a hospital waiting list, or heard of pensioners freezing to death in the winter unable to heat their homes. There is only one Government since 1945 that can say all of the following: More jobs Fewer unemployed Better health and education results Lower crime And economic growth in every quarter. This one. But I don't need a statistic. There is something bigger than what can be measured in waiting lists or GSCE results or the latest crime or jobs figures. Look at our economy. At ease with globalization. London the world's financial centre. Visit our great cities and compare them with 10 years ago. No country attracts overseas investment like we do. Think about the culture of Britain in 2007. I don't just mean our arts that are thriving. I mean our values. The minimum wage. Paid holidays as a right. Amongst the best maternity pay and leave in Europe. Equality for gay people. Or look at the debates that reverberate round the world today. The global movement to support Africa in its struggle against poverty. Climate change. The fight against terrorism. Britain is not a follower. It is a leader. It gets the essential characteristic of today's world: its interdependence. This is a country today that for all its faults, for all the myriad of unresolved problems and fresh challenges, is comfortable in the 21st Century. At home in its own skin, able not just to be proud of its past but confident of its future. I don't think Northern Ireland would have been changed unless Britain had changed. Or the Olympics won if we were still the Britain of 1997. As for my own leadership, throughout these 10 years, where the predictable has competed with the utterly unpredicted, right at the outset one thing was clear to me. Without the Labour Party allowing me to lead it, nothing could ever have been done. But I knew my duty was to put the country first. That much was obvious to me when just under 13 years ago I became Labour's Leader. What I had to learn, however, as Prime Minister, was what putting the country first really meant. Decision-making is hard. Everyone always says: listen to the people. The trouble is they don't always agree. When you are in Opposition, you meet this group and they say why can't you do this? And you say: it's really a good question. Thank you. And they go away and say: it's great; he really listened. You meet that other group and they say: why can't you do that? And you say: it's a really good question. Thank you. And they go away happy you listened. In Government you have to give the answer. Not an answer, the answer. And, in time, you realise putting the country first doesn't mean doing the right thing according to conventional wisdom or the prevailing consensus or the latest snapshot of opinion. It means doing what you genuinely believe to be right. Your duty is to act according to your conviction. All of that can get contorted so that people think you act according to some messianic zeal. Doubt, hesitation, reflection, consideration and re-consideration: these are all the good companions of proper decision-making. But the ultimate obligation is to decide. Sometimes the decisions are accepted quite quickly. Bank of England independence was one, which gave us our economic stability. Sometimes, like tuition fees or trying to break up old monolithic public services, they are deeply controversial, hellish hard to do, but you can see you are moving with the grain of change round the word. Sometimes like with Europe, where I believe Britain should keep its position strong, you know you are fighting opinion but you are content with doing so. Sometimes, as with the completely unexpected, you are alone with your own instinct. In Sierra Leone and to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, I took the decision to make our country one that intervened, that did not pass by, or keep out of the thick of it. Then came the utterly unanticipated and dramatic. September 11th 2001 and the death of 3,000 or more on the streets of New York. I decided we should stand shoulder to shoulder with our oldest ally. I did so out of belief. So Afghanistan and then Iraq. The latter, bitterly controversial. Removing Saddam and his sons from power, as with removing the Taliban, was over with relative ease. But the blowback since, from global terrorism and those elements that support it, has been fierce and unrelenting and costly. For many, it simply isn't and can't be worth it. For me, I think we must see it through. They, the terrorists, who threaten us here and round the world, will never give up if we give up. It is a test of will and of belief. And we can't fail it. So: some things I knew I would be dealing with. Some I thought I might be. Some never occurred to me on that morning of 2 May 1997 when I came into Downing Street for the first time. Great expectations not fulfilled in every part, for sure. Occasionally people say, as I said earlier, they were too high; you should have lowered them. But, to be frank, I would not have wanted it any other way. I was, and remain, as a person and as a Prime Minister, an optimist. Politics may be the art of the possible; but at least in life, give the impossible a go. So of course the vision is painted in the colours of the rainbow; and the reality is sketched in the duller tones of black, white and grey. But I ask you to accept one thing. Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong. That's your call. But believe one thing if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country. I came into office with high hopes for Britain's future. I leave it with even higher hopes for Britain's future. This is a country that can, today, be excited by the opportunities, not constantly fretful of the dangers. People often say to me: it's a tough job. Not really. A tough life is the life the young severely disabled children have and their parents who visited me in Parliament the other week. Tough is the life my Dad had, his whole career cut short at the age of 40 by a stroke. I have been very lucky and very blessed. This country is a blessed nation. The British are special. The world knows it. In our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on earth. It has been an honour to serve it. I give my thanks to you, the British people, for the times I have succeeded, and my apologies to you for the times I have fallen short. Good luck.

滕王閣序 - 王勃

南昌故郡，洪都新府。星分翼軫，地接衡廬。襟三江而帶五湖，控蠻荊而引甌越。物華天寶，龍光射牛斗之墟；人杰地靈，徐孺下陳蕃之榻。雄州霧列，俊採星馳，台隍枕夷夏之交，賓主盡東南之美。都督閻公之雅望，棨戟遙臨；宇文新州之懿范，襜帷暫駐。十旬休假，勝友如雲；千裡逢迎，高朋滿座。騰蛟起鳳，孟學士之詞宗；紫電青霜，王將軍之武庫。家君作宰，路出名區；童子何知，躬逢勝餞。
時維九月，序屬三秋。潦水盡而寒潭清，煙光凝而暮山紫。儼驂騑於上路，訪風景於崇阿。臨帝子之長洲，得仙人之舊館。層台聳翠，上出重霄；飛閣流丹，下臨無地。鶴汀鳧渚，窮島嶼之縈回；桂殿蘭宮，列岡巒之體勢。
披繡闥，俯雕甍，山原曠其盈視，川澤盱其駭矚。閭閻扑地，鐘鳴鼎食之家；舸艦迷津，青雀黃龍之軸。虹銷雨霽，彩徹區明。落霞與孤鶩齊飛，秋水共長天一色。漁舟唱晚，響窮彭蠡之濱；雁陣驚寒，聲斷衡陽之浦。
遙襟俯暢，逸興遄飛。爽籟發而清風生，纖歌凝而白雲遏。睢園綠竹，氣凌彭澤之樽；鄴水朱華，光照臨川之筆。四美具，二難並。窮睇眄於中天，極娛游於暇日。天高地迥，覺宇宙之無窮；興盡悲來，識盈虛之有數。望長安於日下，指吳會於雲間。地勢極而南溟深，天柱高而北辰遠。關山難越，誰悲失路之人？萍水相逢，盡是他鄉之客。懷帝閽而不見，奉宣室以何年？
嗟乎！時運不濟，命運多舛。馮唐 易老，李廣難封。屈賈誼於長沙，非無聖主；竄梁鴻於海曲，豈乏明時。所賴君子安貧，達人知命。老當益壯，寧移白首之心？窮且益堅，不墜青雲之志。酌貪泉而覺爽，處涸轍以猶歡。北海雖賒，扶搖可接；東隅已逝，桑榆非晚。孟嘗高潔，空懷報國之心；阮藉猖狂，豈效窮途之哭！
勃三尺微命，一介書生。無路請纓，等終軍之弱冠；有懷投筆，慕宗愨之長風。舍簪笏於百齡，奉晨昏於萬裡。非謝家之寶樹，接孟氏之芳鄰。他日趨庭，叨陪鯉對；今晨捧袂，喜托龍門。楊意不逢，撫凌雲而自惜；鐘期既遇，奏流水以何慚？
鳴呼！勝地不常，盛筵難再。蘭亭已矣，梓澤丘墟。臨別贈言，幸承恩於偉餞；登高作賦，是所望於群公。敢竭鄙誠，恭疏短引。一言均賦，四韻俱成。請洒潘江，各傾陸海雲爾：
滕王高閣臨江渚，佩玉鳴鸞罷歌舞。
畫棟朝飛南浦雲，珠帘暮卷西山雨。
閑雲潭影日悠悠，物換星移幾度秋。
閣中帝子今何在？檻外長江空自流。

Drawing Hands - M.C. Escher

留侯論 - 蘇軾

古之所謂豪傑之士者，必有過人之節。人情有所不能忍者，匹夫見辱，拔劍而起，挺身而鬥，此不足為勇也。天下有大勇者，卒然臨之而不驚，無故加之而不怒。此其所挾持者甚大，而其志甚遠也。
夫子房受書於圯上之老人也，其事甚怪；然亦安知其非秦之世，有隱君子者出而試之。觀其所以微見其意者，皆聖賢相與警戒之義；而世不察，以為鬼物，亦已過矣。且其意不在書。
當韓之亡，秦之方盛也，以刀鋸鼎鑊待天下之士。其平居無罪夷滅者，不可勝數。雖有賁、育，無所復施。夫持法太急者，其鋒不可犯，而其末可乘。子房不忍忿忿之心，以匹夫之力而逞於一擊之間；當此之時，子房之不死者，其間不能容發，蓋亦已危矣。千金之子，不死於盜賊，何者？其身之可愛，而盜賊之不足以死也。子房以蓋世之材，不為伊尹、太公之謀，而特出於荊軻、聶政之計，以僥幸於不死，此圯上老人之所為深惜者也。是故倨傲鮮腆而深折之。彼其能有所忍也，然后可以就大事，故曰：「孺子可教也。」
楚庄王伐鄭，鄭伯肉袒牽羊以逆；庄王曰：「其君能下人，必能信用其民矣。」遂舍之。句踐之困於會稽，而歸臣妾於吳者，三年而不倦。且夫有報人之志，而不能下人者，是匹夫之剛也。夫老人者，以為子房才有余，而憂其度量之不足，故深折其少年剛銳之氣，使之忍小忿而就大謀。何則？非有生平之素，卒然相遇於草野之間，而命以仆妾之役，油然而不怪者，此固秦皇之所不能驚，而項籍之所不能怒也。
觀夫高祖之所以勝，而項籍之所以敗者，在能忍與不能忍之間而已矣。項籍唯不能忍，是以百戰百勝而輕用其鋒；高祖忍之，養其全鋒而待其弊，此子房教之也。當淮陰破齊而欲自王，高祖發怒，見於詞色。由此觀之，猶有剛強不忍之氣，非子房其誰全之？ 太史公疑子房以為魁梧奇偉，而其狀貌乃如婦人女子，不稱其志氣。嗚呼！此其所以為子房歟！

Scripts - good night, and good luck (part 2)

11. Edward R. Murrows television program on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy was an exciting and provocative examination of the man and his methods. It was crusading journalism of high responsibility and courage. For TV so often plagued by timidity and hesitation the program was a milestone that reflected enlightened citizenship. The program was no less an indictment of those who wish the problems posed by the Senator's tactics and theatrics would just go away and leave them alone.
12. We can't say we were surprised at Murrows "Hate McCarthy" telecast last evening, when his explosively one-sided propaganda edited with deviously clever selectivity from McCarthy's march against Communism, was finished last evening by equally Machiavellian coincidence the following telecast featured Murrow's PM protege, Hollenbeck. In an obviously gloating mood, Hollenbeck hoped viewers had witnessed his patron's triumph from and for the Left. The CBS has been in a lengthy "clean house of Lefties" mood. The worst offenders on lesser levels have been quietly pushed out of the company. Don Hollenbeck, a graduate of the demised pinko publication PM attacked conservative papers with sly and slanted propaganda. He then proceeded through an equally tilted review of the day's events with McCarthy dominating his words, actions, attitudes.
13. It is not sworn testimony it's convicting people by rumor and hearsay and innuendo. You will notice that neither Senator McClellan or Senator Symington nor this reporter know or claim that Mrs. Moss was or is a Communist. They simply claimed that she had the right to meet her accusers face to face. One month ago tonight we presented a report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. We labeled it as controversial. Most of that report consistedof words and pictures of the Senator. At that time, we said "If the Senator believes we have done violence to his words or pictures if he desires to speak, to answer himself an opportunity would be afforded him on this program." The Senator sought the opportunity after weeks because he was very busy and wished adequate time to prepare his reply. We agreed. We placed no restrictions on the manner of the presentation of his reply and we suggested that we would not take time to comment on this particular program. Here now is Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, junior Senator from Wisconsin.
14. Good evening. Mr. Edward R. Murrow, Educational Director of the CBS devoted his program to an attack on the work of the US Senate Investigating Committee and on me personally as its Chairman. Now, over the past years, he has made repeated attacks upon me and those fighting Communists. Of course, neither Joe McCarthy nor Edward R. Murrow is of any great importance as individuals. We are only important in our relation to the great struggle to preserve our American liberties. Now ordinarily, I would not take time out from the important work at hand to answer Murrow. However, in this case I feel justified in doing so because Murrow is the symbol the leader and the cleverest of the jackal pack which is always found at the throat of anyone who dares to expose individual Communists and traitors. And I am compelled by the fact to say to you that Mr. Edward R. Murrow as far back as years ago was engaged in propaganda for Communist causes. For example, the Institute of International Education of which he was the Acting Director was chosen to act as a representative by a Soviet agency to do a job which would normally be done by the Russian secret police. Mr. Murrow, by his own admission, was a member of the IWW that's the Industrial Workers of the World a terrorist organization cited as subversive by an Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Murrow said on this program and I quote "The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have given considerable comfort to the enemy." That is the language of our statute of treason, rather strong language. If I am giving comfort to our enemies, I ought not to be in the Senate. If, on the other hand, Mr. Murrow is giving comfort to our enemies he ought not to be brought into the homes of millions of Americans by the CBS. And I want to assure you that I will not be deterred by the attacks of the Murrows, the Lattimores, the Fosters, the Daily Worker or the Communist Party itself.And I make no claim to leadership. Incomplete humility I do ask you and every American who loves this country to join with me.
15. Last week, Senator McCarthy appeared on this program to correct any errors he might have thought we made in our report of March. Since he made no reference to any statements of fact that we made we must conclude that he found no errors of fact. He proved again that anyone who exposes him anyone who doesn't share his disregard for decency and human dignity and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution must be either a Communistor a fellow traveler. I fully expected this treatment. The Senator added this reporter's name to a long list of individuals and institutions he has accused of serving the Communist cause. His proposition is very simple: anyone who criticizes or opposes Senator McCarthy's methods must be a Communist. And if that be true, there are an awful lot of Communists in the USA. For the record, let's consider briefly some of the Senator's charges. He claimed, but offered no proof that I had been a member of the Industrial Workers of the World. That is false. I was never a member of the IWW, never applied for membership. The Senator charged that Professor Harold Laski a British scholar and politician, dedicated a book to me. That's true. He is dead. He was a socialist, I am not. He was a civilized individual who did not insist upon agreement with his political principles as a pre-condition for conversation or friendship. I do not agreewith his political ideas. I ask, as he makes clear in the introduction dedicated the book to me, not because of political agreement but because he held my wartime broadcast from London in high regard. And the dedication so reads. I believed years ago and I believe today that mature Americans can engage in conversation and controversy the clash of ideas, with Communists anywhere in the world without becoming contaminated or converted. I believe that our faith, our conviction our determination are stronger than theirs and that we can successfully compete, not only in the area of bombs but in the area of ideas. I have worked with CBSfor more than years. The company has subscribed fully to my integrity and responsibility as a broadcaster and as a loyal American. I require no lectures from the junior Senator from Wisconsin as to the dangers or terrors of Communism. Having searched my conscience and my files I cannot contend that I have always been right or wise but I have attempted to pursuethe truth with diligence and to report it even though, as in this case, I had been warned in advance that I would be subjected to the attentions of Senator McCarthy. We shall hope to deal with matters of more vital interest next week. Good night, and good luck.
16. In the last analysis, the Senator was perched on the television high dive and all prepared to make a resounding splash. He jumped beautifully, but he neglected to check first where he was going to land. It must have been a shock to discover that Mr. Murrow had drained the water out of the pool.
17. One of the best programs I ever heard was called "CBS Views The Press". A great many people liked it, some didn't but no one ever called it anything but honest. It was the work of an honest reporter. Don Hollenbeck.
18. We are proud because from the beginning of this nation man can walk upright. No matter who he is or who she is. He can walk upright and meet his friend or his enemy. And he does not fear that because that enemy may be in a position of great power that he can be suddenly thrown in jail to rot there without charges and with no recourse to justice. We have the Habeas Corpus Act and we respect it. I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us. Just once in a while, let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey on the state of American education. And a week or two later, the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thorough-going study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the shareholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country and therefore the future of the corporations? To those who say, "People wouldn't look, they wouldn't be interested they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated". I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach. It can illuminate and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it towards those ends. Otherwise, it is merely wires and lights in a box.

水調歌頭 - 蘇軾

丙辰中秋歡飲達旦、大醉、作此篇、兼懷子由
明月幾時有，把酒問青天。
不知天上宮闕，今夕是何年。
我欲乘風歸去，又恐瓊樓玉宇，高處不勝寒。
起舞弄清影，何似在人間。
轉朱閣，低綺戶，照無眠。
不應有恨，何事長向別時圓。
人有悲歡離合，月有陰晴圓缺，此事古難全。
但願人長久，千里共嬋娟。

Scripts - good night, and good luck (part 1)

1. This might just do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous ideas.
2. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television. And if what I say is responsible I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Our history will be what we make of it.
3. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable, and complacent. We have a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us then television and those who finance it those who look at it and those who work at it may see a totally different picture too late.
4. We all editorialize. I'm just making sure we identify what We're giving them the information up front and we're asking them to comment on it.
5. I've searched my conscience. I can't for the life of me find any justification for this. I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story two equal and logical sides to an argument.
6. The story you are going to run tomorrow is without merit. So before you take any steps that cannot be undone I strongly urge you to reconsider your stand. These are very dangerous waters you are attempting to navigate.
7. If the Senator feels that we have done violence to his words or pictures and desires to answer himself an opportunity will be afforded him
on this program. Our working thesis tonight is this quotation: "If this fight against Communism has made a fight between America's two great political parties" "the American people know that one of these parties will be destroyed and the Republic cannot endure very long as a one-party system." We applaud that statement and we think Senator McCarthy ought to. He said it months ago in Milwaukee. The American people realize that this cannot be made a fight between America's two great political parties. If this fight against Communism is made a fight against America's two great political parties the American people know that one of those parties will be destroyed and the Republic can't endure very long as a one-party system. On one thing the Senator has been consistent. Often operating as a one-man committee, he has traveled far interviewed many, terrorized some accused civilian and military leaders of the past administration of a great conspiracy to turn over the country to Communism. As I read his statement, I thought of that quotation, "On what meat does this our Caesar feed?".
8. The sale of that book was so abysmally small it was so unsuccessful, that the question of its influence. You can go back to the publisher you'll see it was one of the most unsuccessful books he ever put out. He's still sorry about it, just as I am. Well, I think that's a compliment to American intelligence.
9. Earlier, the Senator asked, "Upon what meat does this our Caesar feed?". Had he looked three lines earlier in Shakespeare's "Caesar" he would have found this line, which is not altogether inappropriate. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
10. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men not from men who feared to write, to associate, to speak and to defend the causes that were for the moment unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history but we cannot escape responsibility for the results. We proclaim ourselves, indeed as we are the defenders of freedom wherever it continues to exist in the world but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

江城子 - 蘇軾

密州出獵
老夫聊發少年狂。左牽黃，右擎蒼。
錦帽貂裘，千騎卷平岡。
為報傾城隨太守，親射虎，看孫郎。
酒酣胸膽尚開張。 鬢微霜，又何妨。
持節雲中，何日遣馮唐。
會挽雕弓如滿月，西北望，射天狼。　

乙卯正月二十日夜記夢
十年生死兩茫茫。不思量，自難忘。
千里孤墳，無處話淒涼。
縱使相逢應不識，塵滿面，鬢如霜。
夜來幽夢忽還鄉。小軒窗，正梳妝。
相顧無言，惟有淚千行。
料得年年斷腸處，明月夜，短松岡。

Oscar Wilde

I choose my friends for their good looks, my acquaintances for their good characters, and my enemies for their good intellects. A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies.

-Oscar Wilde-