ABSTRACT This paper draws attention to overlooked similarities between John Rawls’s and Emmanuel Levinas’s understandings of justice. Its first part provides a synopsis of each philosopher’s ideas as well trends in the secondary literature on their comparability. I then focus on an especially thoughtful attempt to open a dialogue between Levinas and Rawls—Flora Bastiani’s ‘Égalité, équité et justice.’ Bastiani identifies several points of comparison but concludes that a different, superior ‘moral criterion’ inspires Levinas’s idea of justice. Bastiani bases her analysis on Rawls’s Theory of Justice. However, Rawls substantially revised his theory in Political Liberalism. I argue that he was not unaware of criticisms like the ones which Bastiani raises and that he sought to address them in Political Liberalism. Moreover, I show that his revised ‘political conception’ of justice has surprising affinities to Levinas. For both, justice arises out of an ethical exigency imposed onto us by those whose values and perspectives cannot be assimilated to our own—an ethical demand that we refuse the temptation to impose our will onto them and endeavor instead to enact peaceful compromises.

中文翻译：

---

Emmanuel Levinas 和 John Rawls 的正义

摘要 本文提请注意约翰·罗尔斯 (John Rawls) 和伊曼纽尔·列维纳斯 (Emmanuel Levinas) 对正义的理解之间被忽视的相似之处。它的第一部分提供了每位哲学家思想的概要，以及关于其可比性的二手文献中的趋势。然后，我将重点放在开启列维纳斯和罗尔斯之间对话的特别深思熟虑的尝试上——弗洛拉·巴斯蒂亚尼 (Flora Bastiani) 的“平等、平等和正义”。巴斯蒂亚尼确定了几个比较点，但得出的结论是，一个不同的、优越的“道德标准”激发了列维纳斯的正义观念。巴斯蒂亚尼的分析基于罗尔斯的正义理论。然而，罗尔斯在政治自由主义中大幅修改了他的理论。我认为他并非不知道巴斯蒂亚尼提出的那些批评，并且他试图在政治自由主义中解决这些批评。而且，我表明，他修订后的正义“政治概念”与列维纳斯有着惊人的相似之处。对两者而言，正义都源于那些价值观和观点无法与我们同化的人强加给我们的道德紧迫性——一种道德要求，即我们拒绝将我们的意志强加给他们的诱惑，而是努力制定和平妥协。