這篇是我政治哲學課的第二篇功課﹐前後花了兩個星期寫了總共三份草稿。初稿給教授刪去了三份之一編幅﹐說我有一半的論點完全不著邊際﹐著我加強剩下那些論點的說服力﹐並何舉例子去解釋我自己以及馬克思主義者的論點。

這文章的內容是討論馬克思主義與勞工剝削﹐馬克思認為資本主義必然會導致勞工受到剝削﹐資本家搾取勞工的剩餘價值﹐所以應該要取消私有產權制度﹐把所有生產工具收歸國有。我這篇文章主要是題出相反意見﹐論證在自由市場下資本主義不一定剝削勞工﹐剩餘價值的出現是由於馬克思的經濟理論有錯誤﹐反而共產主義下必定會出現剝削勞工的情況。

Marxism and Exploitation

Introduction:
Most contemporary analytical Marxists reject the idea that communism is beyond justice. Therefore they take a different approach and develop a communist theory of justice based on the abolition of private property. Marxists think that “private ownership of the means of production should be abolished because it gives rise to the wage-labour relationship which is inherently unjust.”1 They base their arguments on the claims that the wage-labour relationship is inherently exploitative and inherently alienating. This paper will criticize and examine their exploitation argument. Kymlicka criticizes Marxism by arguing that “equalizing resources may be non-exploitative, even if some people work for others, and socializing resources may be exploitative”2. I am going to criticize the exploitation argument using an approach different from Kymlicka’s by showing there exists no exploitation in wage-labour relationship under private ownership of means of production in a modern capitalist economy. In this paper, I will first outline Marx’s views on exploitation. Then I will present the general argument of my anti-thesis. Then I will examine and evaluate some responses from the analytical Marxists against my criticism.

Definition of Exploitation:
Marxists claim that the private ownership and control of productive resources will lead to the exploitation of the worker by the capitalist conclusively since the wage-labour relationship licenses the buying and selling of labour. Exploitation in everyday use means “taking unfair advantage of someone” that normally relies on the under laying justice theory to judge what is unfair. It would be begging the question if Marxism builds the communist theory of justice without first defining what is unfair. Therefore Marxists use a technical definition of exploitation that “refers to the specific phenomenon of the capitalist extracting more value from the work’s labour than is paid back to the worker in return for that labour.”3 According to Marxists, the profit of capitalist comes from the forced transfer of “surplus value” from the worker to the capitalist. The argument is outlined as follows: 4

1. The labourer is the only person who creates the product, that which has value
2. The capitalist receives some of the value (surplus value) of the product

Therefore:

1. The labourer receives less value than the value of what he creates
2. The capitalist receives some of the value of what the labourer creates

Therefore

1. The labourer is exploited by the capitalist

Example of Exploitation:
Let us illustrate the exploitation argument with the example outlined by Engels in the introduction of Marx’s article on Wage-Labor and Capital. 5 Workers sell their labour-power to the employers in exchange for wages. Assuming a worker gets a daily wage of 3 dollars from employer and he can finish one product per day. Assuming the raw materials and energy consumed to make one product costs 21 dollars. Therefore, the cost of production of the product is total 24 dollars. The capitalist sell the product for 27 dollars to his customers and received 3 dollars as profit. The price of the product is 27 dollars, out of which 21 dollars already exists before production begins. There the remaining 6 dollars, which have been added to the value of the raw material. According to premise 1, these 6 dollars can arise only from the labour-power added to the raw material by the worker. Therefore the value of a day of work of a worker would be equivalent to 6 dollars. Out of the 6 dollars value the worker created, the capitalist pays the worker 3 dollars as wages, and pocketed the remaining 3 dollars. In Marx words, the capitalist extracts 3 dollars of surplus value from the worker, hence the workers are exploited by the capitalist.

Objections:
My objection has two lines of argument: first, the transfer of surplus value, if that exists, is not necessarily exploitation and, secondly, there is, in fact, no surplus value in wage-labor relationship in a modern capitalist democratic society.

My first argument is that in a modern capitalist economy, the wage-labor relationship is based on contractual agreement. The work and the capitalist voluntarily form the employment contract. In the contract, the employer stated the term of employment including the working hours, wage and other benefits. By signing the employment contract, the worker agrees to accept the employment package in exchange for his work. The wage is determined by the invisible hand following the law of supply and demand, which is the fair market price of the labour-power and skills possessed by the worker. Kymlicka concluded that “there is nothing unjust about volunteering to contribute one’s labour to others”6, therefore only the forced transfer of surplus value is exploitative. In a modern capitalism economy, the workers have means to become a capitalist by acquiring the means of production. In other words, the workers are not forced to work for the capitalist. Therefore the voluntary nature of the employment contract between the worker and the capitalist renders the wage-labour relationship non-exploitative.

My second argument is that premise (1) in the exploitation argument is simply false. Premise (1) is based on false economic theory. The worker is not the only person who creates the product. The surplus value can be explained economically by two major factors. First, the management skills of the capitalist also contribute to the final value of the product. The product made by the worker is worth nothing without the capitalist to determine which product to make, which worker to hire, how to divide up works among workers, etc. The capitalist receives some of the value of the product for his value-added management service for the worker. Second, the productive resources are accumulated labour value owned by the capitalist. The worker cannot produce any product without using the productive resources of the capitalist. The surplus value can be explained as rents paid by the worker to the capitalist in exchange for the right to use the productive resources. Since premise (1) is rejected, premises (3) and (4) do not follow. The worker receives all the value of what he creates and the capitalist receives no value of what the worker creates. Since the capitalist extract no surplus value from the worker, the worker is not exploited by the capitalist.

Reponses from Marists:
In response to my first criticism, “most Marxists, therefore, add the proviso that the worker must be forced to work for the capitalist. Since workers do not in general own any productive assets, and can only earn a living by working for a propertied capitalist, most wage relationships fall under this proviso.” 7 This is a hidden necessary premise required for Marists’ exploitation argument in order to conclude wage-labour relationship is inherently unjust. Therefore we should add a new premise to the exploitation argument:

  2a. The workers are forced to work for the capitalist. 

This premise is an empirical statement and we can evaluate whether it is true or false in a modern capitalist economy. I am going to demonstrate that this statement is false in a modern capitalist economy, thus we should reject the exploitation argument. In addition, I am going to show that without premise 2, premise 2a alone is not a sufficient argument to conclude wage-labour relationship is exploitative.

In Marx’s days when capitalism was still in its early stage or in some third world countries new to capitalism, this premise may be true. However in today’s world of more advanced capitalism, notably in western countries with democracy, this statement is false.

Since the dawn of capitalism, skilled labourers are always short in demand. Especially those process creative talents and intellectual skills, which often requires years of educations to develop. Unlike unskilled labourers who are easy to replace, the skilled labourers can negotiate the best possible contract with the capitalist. The productive assets of the capitalist are worthless without skill labourers. In today’s world where capital is abundant but skilled labourers are scare, the skilled labourers have all the means to access the production resources. If they choose not to work for a capitalist, the financial system provides loans to the worker the necessary capitals to acquire the productive asserts to start his own production. There are many self-employed people and entrepreneurs prosper in the free market economy. None of the skilled labourers is forced to work for the capitalist. Rather they form a partnership with the capitalist that is mutually beneficial.

According to Marx, the definition of the capitalist is those who own the means of production and the definition of worker is those who sell their labour power and do not own the means of production. I would like to point out that according to this definition; almost everyone in modern western countries is a capitalist. The easy access to the equity market, mutual funds and registered retirement plans allows every worker to own a share in the means of production. Stock option or stock purchasing plans given to the employee turns many workers into joint owners of the company. It is almost impossible to imagine someone has his saving in non-capital investment in a modern capitalist society. Moreover, since the turn of the century, the digital revolution brings computers to almost every household. Even those who do not have any investments typically own a computer, which is a means of production. Therefore, a person who has a computer is essentially a capitalist. In fact, there are many successful capitalists, such as the founders of Yahoo, Google or Youtube, that started as college students own nothing but their computers. All the workers own some capital and this gives them the potential to be the next billionaire. Therefore it is not true that the workers are forced to work for the capitalist. They choose to work for the capitalist because they think working under a wage-labour relationship is better than starting their own business venture.

It is true that in many places, the unskilled workers are force to work for the capitalist in order to support a decent living. However, as long as the capitalist gives the worker all the value he produces, there is no exploitation in this forced work relationship. For example, if the worker can create 6 dollars of wealth in one day of work and the capitalist pay the worker 6 dollars of wages per day, then there is no transfer of surplus value from the worker to the capitalist. On the other hand, there are some other unskilled workers not hired by the capitalist because of abundant supply of unskilled workers. There is also no transfer of surplus value from the unemployed workers to the capitalist. Since, both premise 2 and 2a are required by the exploitation argument, it is exploitative only when there is a forced transfer of surplus value from the worker to capitalist. Therefore the unskilled workers are not exploited by capitalist if the profit of the capitalist is not surplus value as I had demonstrated in my second objection.

Marx also said that “workers are entitled to the product of their labour and it is the forced denial of that entitlement which renders capitalism unjust.”8 In other words, the government has no obligation to redistribute the social goods to the unskilled workers who cannot earn a decent living on his own. All social goods are product of labour entitled to someone else, namely the worker who produces the product originally. If a worker lacks the means to support himself if he chooses not to work for capitalist, it is exploitative to ask other people to provide him a decent living. In other words, it is not exploitative that the unskilled workers are force to work for the capitalist if it is the only way to provide them a decent living. Therefore, premise 2a alone is not a sufficient argument to conclude the wage-labour relationship is inherently unjust.

The Marxist may tempted to refute my previous argument saying that under socialism, there would be no capitalist, everyone would jointly own capital and the things produced, so that they are jointly entitled to whatever profits were made. Therefore the unskilled workers will not be forced to work for the capitalist and still able to earn a decent living.

I am going to demonstrate as long as the workers have skill difference and the means of production are scarce, exploitation will exist even the capital are socialized. Under capitalism, the right of usage of the means of production is implicitly come with the ownership of the means of production. Socializing the ownership of the means of production does not solve the problem which person has the right to use the means of production. One method to solve this problem is to distribute the usage among all the workers equally. For example, if there is one machine and two workers, each worker gets to use the machine half a day. Now, imagine the two workers have different skill level. The skilled worker can create 10 dollars worth of product in 1 day, and the unskilled worker can only create 2 dollars worth of product in 1 day. If we allow each worker use the machine half a day, the total wealth created in a day will be 6 dollars, which is not the most efficient use of the machine. Assuming both workers are rational and the skilled worker wanted to earn more money to have a better living. It makes economical sense for the skilled worker to make a mutually beneficial proposal to the unskilled worker. The skilled worker will pay the unskilled 2 dollars a day so that the skilled worker could use the machine for the whole day. The unskilled worker has no reason to object this proposal since it is considerably more than his current incoming and it is impossible for him to beat this amount even if he can use the machine for the whole day. In the end, the skilled worker works for a whole day and creates 10 dollars worth of product. He gave 2 dollars to the unskilled worker and keeps the remaining 8 dollars to himself. It seems that everyone is happy and the output is maximized. However, something is wrong in this picture. The unskilled worker does not produce anything yet he receives 2 dollars of income everyday. The skilled worker is forced to work half a day for unskilled because the skilled worker wants to have a better living. The skilled worker is the only person who creates the product, which that has value. The unskilled worker receives some of the value of the product. In other words, according to the exploitation argument, the skilled worker is exploited by the unskilled worker.

In response to my second criticism, the Marxists have no choice but accept the surplus value does not exist in modern capitalist economy with democracy. Instead they challenge the capitalist’s ownership of the capital and “scorned those who argued that capitalists acquire their property through conscientious savings, and he went on to show that ‘conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, play the great part’ in capital accumulation. This unjust initial accumulation undermines the risk argument, for even if capitalists are willing to take risks with their capital, it is not (morally speaking) their capital to take risk with. Workers might be willing to take the same risks as capitalists if they had any capital to take risks with” 9 Like the response to my first criticism, this is another hidden necessary premise, so we have to add a new premise to the argument:

  2b. All capitalists acquire and accumulate their capital unjustly. 

This premise has two parts. The first part is about how capitalist is initially acquired and the second part involves the reward of taking risk. I am going to show that capital in modern capitalism can be acquired justly and illustrate the Marxists’ idea of risk taking has logical fallacy.

In a modern capitalist economy, many capitalists indeed acquire their property through conscientious savings. Wealth is accumulated by creation of innovative technology or better process that reduces the cost of production. For example, a talented inventor builds a tool that allows him to produce products much more efficiently. Instead of selling the tool in exchange for personal property, he turns the tool into productive resources and hires workers to build products using his tools. The inventor has become a capitalist and he is entitled to own his capital justly. The richest capitalist in the world, Bill Gates, accumulated his wealth this way with series of inventions one after another. Workers working for him are considered having one of the best jobs in the world, sometimes even better than being a capitalist. Many of those workers have more than enough capital to start their own company, yet they still choose to engage in wage-labour relationship. In order to conclude wage-labour relationship is inherently unjust, Marxists have to show that all wage-labour involves exploitation, with no exception. As long as there are means for capitalist to accumulate capital justly, according to the considerations of liberty proposed by John Stuart Mill, we should allow the private ownership of property. The government should take precaution to ensure the capital is accumulated justly and punish those who acquire their wealth unjustly. Abolish the private ownership of capital because some capitalists acquired their wealth unjustly is like throwing the baby away with the bath water. It also infringes the liberty of the capitalists who acquire their wealth without exploitation. In a modern capitalist economy, there are thousands and thousands of examples that capital, which is accumulated labour-power, is justly owned by the capitalist. Therefore, the government should allow the private ownership of the means of production because premise 2b is false.

There is a difference between the willingness to take the risk and the return of taking the risk. Indeed, both worker and capitalist have the same willingness to take the risk. However due to the difference in skill or luck, the return of taking the risk is very difference. Two people may start with the same amount of money, taking the same amount of risk but may end up having different amounts of money. The one who made the right investment choices will be rewarded with more capital. Then he can use the capital to acquire further productive resources and become a more successful capitalist. The one who made the wrong investment choices will lose his money. He has to stay as a worker, work hard and save up enough initial capital to take another risk again. Workers who take the right risk can ascend to be a capitalist. Capitalists who take the wrong risk will fall back to be a worker. As long as there are healthy mobility between the worker class and the capitalist class, it is acceptable to have two difference classes in the society as reward for taking the right risk. Therefore premise 2b is false if some capitalists were once a worker who accumulates his wealth by taking the right risk. Again, we have thousands and thousands of examples in modern capitalist economy.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, I have successfully refuted the exploitation argument by showing that workers are not necessary forced to work for the capitalist under wage-labour relationship and surplus value do not exists, the workers retain all the value they created. I have considered some responses from the Marists, but they are failed to defend the argument from my criticism. Therefore, there is no inherent exploitation in wage-labor relationship, thus the private ownership of means of productions is not inherently unjust.

自從蘇聯解體﹐東歐變天﹐中國走資後﹐很多人以為馬克思主義已經死亡。在西方學院派裹卻重新投胎成為分析馬克思主義 (Analytical Marxism)。分析主義與原版馬克思主義不同之處﹐是放棄了很多錯得無可救藥的論點。特別是末期資本主義必然自我崩潰﹐共產主義必定來臨的唯物史觀﹐因為這個按照現實的唯物史觀來看﹐資本主義才是經濟發展的大趨勢。分析主義當然亦放棄無產階級革命﹐改為在政治理論的層面去說明為什麼要取消私有產權制度﹐改為實行共產主義。

分析主義有兩個層面﹐第一個層面指出在不論新舊自由主義下﹐以追求公義為目的政治理念有問題﹐因為共產主義社會超越公義。第二個層則源用公義的慨念﹐但指出私有產權與公義不乎。

1. 共產主義超越公義
   公義是用來介定每個人的權利和義務﹐公平是解決資源分配的方法﹐馬克思認為在共產主義的友愛底下﹐每個人也都各盡所能各取所需﹐大家無私地為他人奉獻﹐不再存在紛爭﹐所以不需要有公義這個慨念。

很明顯這個想法過於天真脫離現實﹐首先資源不是無限﹐沒有可能滿足所有人的所有需要。其次是每個人也有不同的想法﹐就算他們最終的理念一致﹐如何決定執行計劃也不盡相同。除非世界上所有人思想完全一樣﹐否則我們就需要用公義去分配資源。其次無私為人也可以帶來衝突﹐公義亦介定每個人的主權和自由﹐防止別人把自已認為是好的想法﹐以為我們的名義強加在我們身上。所以現今大部份分析主義學者﹐都接受社會需要公義這個現實﹐從而論證共產主義如何比自由主義更加公義。

1. 私有產權必然不公義
   固名思義共產主義的核心價值就是共產﹐認為要取消私有產權制度才有公義。嚴格來說不是所有東西也大家公用﹐每個人還量可以私人擁有生活的必需品﹐但不可以擁有或控制可以用來生產的財產﹐公平的產分配就是全屬社會。自由主義的收入資源分配還是不公義﹐因為生產資源控制在資本家手中﹐必然會產生不公義的勞資關係﹐有以下兩個論點支持

a. 勞資關係剝削工人。
馬克思對剝削的定義﹐是只有工人的勞動才能夠產生價值﹐資本家從工人的生產中獲取得價值﹐所以工人沒有全取應得的價值﹐剩餘價值的就成為資本家利潤﹐所以資本家剝削工人。這個剝削理論可謂千蒼百孔﹐基本上私有產權與公義不一定有衡突。

工人自願的勞資關係沒有剝削﹐要工人被逼替資本家工作才算是剝削。若所有資本控制在資本家手上﹐工人沒有選擇下必需要打工就是被逼工作。可是在健康的自由市場下﹐工人可以選擇不同的工作亦可以選擇創業﹐因此剝削的情況就不存在了。

價值不是只由工人的勞動產生﹐根本沒有所謂的剩餘價值。資本家有效率的管理﹐投資資本的風險﹐就是資利家應很的利潤。再者資本曾經前人生產的成果﹐工人可以儲錢自己開生意變為資本家﹐若政府充公那些勞動得來的資本﹐則剝削已變資本家的工人的勞動成果。

社會上不是所有人也可以勞動﹐身體有缺陷的人或全職母親就沒有工作﹐還有些人能力不及﹐動勞產生的價值不足以糊口。套用馬克思的說法﹐這些人反過來是在剝削勞動的工人。若果用收入資源分配去解決這個不公義﹐則生產資源分配去達到公義則顯得多此一舉﹐倒不如直接用新自由主義。

b. 勞資關係必然導致異化勞動。
馬克思認為生產資源的分配﹐必需讓所有人都合作地有創意地快樂地勞動。在勞資關係中﹐工人要聽從資本家的指示去勞動﹐工作刻板沒有滿足感﹐讓工人淪為資本家的生財工具﹐為之異化勞動。在共產主義下工人有話事權﹐可以自行決定如何工作﹐從非異化的勞動中帶來滿足感。同樣的這個理論也是垃圾﹐有三大反對論點。

異化勞動不一定不好﹐有些人認為其他人生價值比勞動重要。在專業分工下生產力增加﹐做用一件工作﹐非異化勞動要四小時﹐異化勞動可能只需要兩小時就做好了。空出來的兩小時不一定要勞動﹐可以用來優閒娛樂或陪伴家庭朋友﹐又或者再勞動賺取更多物質享受。

勞資關係也可以有非異化勞動﹐在現今社會以知識為主的經濟中﹐就不乏充滿創意自主性強的工作。事實在這些行業中的資本家﹐亦十分鼓勵支持非異化勞動﹐因為這是最有效率的生產方法﹐更可以達到勞資雙方雙贏的結果。

共產主義也消除不了異化勞動﹐因為總會有些工作沒有人願意去做。醫生教師音樂家等非異化勞動﹐大家可以心甘情否投其所好去做﹐但是社會上總要有人倒垃圾。政府可以規定大家輪流去做異化勞動﹐可是一來沒有專業分工效率低﹐二來讓醫生去倒垃圾是人力資源錯配﹐亦不可能反過來叫倒垃圾的去醫人。政府可以額外收入去補償異化勞動﹐但這正就是上面支持勞資關係的理由。

總括來說﹐馬克思主義內在問題太多﹐改用分析主義也是返魂乏術。不過馬克思主義在歷史有很大影響﹐這個失敗的政治實驗有反面教材的價值。

新自由主義支持自由市場經濟﹐反對政府用任何理由干預市場﹐或者用公平為名去重新分配資源﹐所以要支持資本主義(Capitalsim)。支持資本主義的人不一定支持新自由主義﹐他們雖然認為資本主義不完美﹐但是這是可以實行的方案中最好的選擇。他們可以用功用主義去作出推論﹐指出資本主義可以生產最多資源﹐最能夠滿足最多人的需要﹐達至功用最大化。他們亦可以從保障人權自由方便入手﹐指出大政府主義權力集中必然會腐化﹐Fedrick Hayek在其著作自由到勞役之路中﹐就說明自由市場對人權的重要性。這兩個支持資本主義的論點﹐是基於通過驗證的基礎上﹐沒有內在的必然性。如果發明新的制度可以讓功用最大化﹐又或者一樣能夠有效保障人權﹐則沒有理由繼續支資本主義。

新自由主義從另一個角度支持自由市場﹐說政府分配資源在本質不對﹐因為這樣做政府就會侵犯人民的權益。每個人有權決定如何使用他擁有的資源﹐政府若用稅收去掠奪人民的資源﹐就等同於強迫人民做奴隸﹐有違人類最基本的道德權益。Robert Nozick提出以下兩個論點﹕

1. 擁有理論 (Entitlement Theory)
   如果每個人最初公平地擁有資源﹐通過自願合法的市場交易﹐達至一個新的資源分佈﹐則這個新的資源分佈也是同樣公平。如果政府要夾硬重新分配資源﹐則是不公平地影響人民的生活。

這個理論的反對者提出﹐現實中資源最初根本沒有公平分配﹐那就不能推論出其後的分佈也是公平。理論上Nozick支持一次過分配﹐分配過以後不論如何貧富懸殊也是公平。這個理論主要是反對新自由主義中﹐政府要不停地作出資源分配才可以有公平。留意一點是Nozick對公平的定義﹐與Rawls公平的定義不同。Rawls的公平是均分﹐Nozick的公平是擁有權。

1. 自主理論 (Self-Ownership Argument)
   首先我對自己有主權﹐不是屬於任何人﹐我完全擁有我的材幹﹐所以我擁有用我的材幹生產出來的資源。若政府強制重新分配資源﹐我就要交出我的所有去給其他人﹐那樣我就淪為別人的生財工具。而把人視為只有工具價值不乎合道德﹐所以強制分配資源不道德。

這個理論的最大弱點﹐是忽視單單材幹不足以生產資源﹐還是需要在人身個體以外的產業﹐如土地或生產公具等。要確立這些外在財產的所有權﹐則又回到擁有理論的問題。不過隨著知識型和服務型經濟的發展﹐資源生產對外在產業的需求減少﹐自主理論在某些方便可以成立。

David Gautheir則從社會契約入手﹐去找出支持新自由主義的理據。他與Rawls的社會契約不同之處﹐是他包括人天生材能各有不同這個現實。由於每個人的材能不同﹐每一個人的議價能力也不同。一個有效的契約﹐除了所有人也為自己爭取最大益處外﹐還要可以實行﹐不然就只是紙上談兵。社會契約是基於共同利益﹐自主權衍生資源擁有權對每個人也有益處﹐可是重新分配資源只對小部份人有益處﹐而那些人沒有能力實行資源分配﹐所以他們根本沒有議價能力﹐所以新自由主義是現實中最好的社會契約。

反對者說這個社會契約沒有考慮公義﹐Gautheir回應他們公義的定義有問題。他們的公義憑空變出來無中生有﹐只是他們一廂情願的主觀想法。這已經超出政治哲學笵圍﹐涉及道德理論﹐探討道德從來而來的問題。前者假定公義是客觀的道德標準﹐而後者則假定道德不能違反自然定律。

最後說說七十年代在西方興起﹐九十年代未開始未落的福利主義。自由主義者通常支持福利主義﹐認為資源分配幫助窮人的最好方法。資本主義者也認為要幫助窮人﹐不過他們認為讓窮人自力更生才是最好方法。他們指出福利主義有以下幾個問題﹐養懶人﹐養成窮人依賴福利的習慣﹐政府根本沒有施政能力﹐福利政策設計上嚴重失誤﹐甚至越幫越差。這些問題有現實數據支持﹐自由主義者不能無視福利主義的是否有效的問題。

自由主義是哲學家John Rawls提出﹐在七十年代興起至今差不多半個世紀﹐一直深受是西方左派社運份子喜愛。他不滿意功用主義與傳統道德理論差太遠﹐可是另一邊廂的道德直覺主義又是一盤散沙﹐有很多互相衡突的道德金科玉律﹐沒有完整系統去制定社會政策﹐於是提出新自由主義填補這個空缺。新自由主義有兩大教條分別是﹕

1. 一個公義的社會就是公平的社會﹐每個人的基本人權﹐利益受到保障。這項教條本身沒有什麼爭議性﹐與古典自由主義的思想一脈相成﹐第二項教條可是破天荒的新理論﹐改變西方政治理論的討論方向﹐成為學者討論其他理論比較的基準點﹐或曰慘成為天下圍攻的箭靶。

2.資源的分配比需遵守最大化最不幸社群利期的準則。換一句話說﹐公平的定義是資源均分﹐除非不均分配可以讓最差一群人也最受惠。舉個例子﹐上層﹐中產﹐基層有四個資源的分配安案﹐
A. 9, 4, 1
B. 8, 6, 2
C. 5, 4, 4
D. 3, 3, 3
自由主義必需要選擇第三個方案﹐不選擇極不公平的第一個方案原因很明顯。不選第四個方案是因為均貧﹐但反對資源最大化的第二個方案就有待相確了。第二教條一般稱之為不同定律(difference principle)

支持新自由主義的不同定律主要有兩個論點

1. 社會契約論
   假若每一個人也是自私和理性﹐若果我們投胎前不知道我們在社會上的起點﹐例如不知道父母是否有錢﹐不知道有沒有天賦材能。在沒有任何資訊的情況下﹐選擇新自由主義的不同定律是最好的社會契約。因為跟據風險最小化的推論﹐我們就算不幸生為基層﹐也希望有好日子過﹐所以就要把基層利益最大化了。

當然也有人會批評假設性的社會契約不切實際﹐現實沒可能出現無知的選擇。可是這是一個哲學性的思想實驗﹐理性中的理論不定要從現實出發﹐可以是先得出結果﹐再把現實理朝想方向改造。

最大問題是這個推論有一個盲點﹐忘記了機會率的風險評估和人性的賭徒心理。若選擇基層利益為勉強可以過活﹐就有機會博進入生活中上層享受榮華富貴﹐反正生在上中下三層的機會也是均等的。所以只保障基層的最低生活標準﹐也不失為一個可以接受的社會契約。

1. 公平推論
   古典自由主義保障基本人權﹐讓人可以在公平的情況下自由競爭。可是由為人生出來就是不平等﹐有些人家境富裕﹐有些人天資聰資﹐在公平競爭下的起步點全靠運氣安排﹐因此社會就要通過資源分配﹐讓所有人在同一的起步點開始競爭﹐所以就支持不同定律了。

這個公平推論看似有效﹐但是必須解答以下這些問題。

命生得好有運氣成份﹐可是成功也要靠運氣。一個出身寒微﹐天資平平的人﹐可以因為後天的努力和機緣巧合﹐成為一個坐擁巨大資源成功的人士﹐在起點公平下﹐他沒有理由要把資源分給其他人﹐所以不同定律就不成立。若一個人可以靠後天的好運氣﹐那不可以靠先天的好運氣就是不公平了。若果要把後天的好運氣的因素也除去﹐一來是實際上不可能做到﹐若要硬實行那人就會變得和機械人就沒有分別﹐所有事情也是整定。

其次就是不同定律沒有指明資源要代代清﹐若一個父母通過自身的努力﹐他們有權決定如何去使用賺取或分配到的資源。他們可以望子成龍的心態﹐希望子女未來有更好的生活﹐犧牲自己的可以享受的資源去裁培兒女。換一句話說強行要把人有起步點拉平﹐就會損害了父母公平使用資源的權利。

要把所有人的起步點拉平聽好像很公平﹐可是卻不切實際的空想。給窮家子弟獎學金升學﹐或為與建方便傷殘人仕的設施沒有大問題。可是對於一些嚴重殘障或弱智人士﹐不論投放多少資源他們也不可能公平競爭。基於不同定律的公平原則下﹐我們要把資源無限地掉入沒有回報黑洞﹐最終只會導至均貧。若把上限定為資源分均﹐則無視不同人有不同需要。若把資源分配與回報掛釣﹐則會變成自由主義所批評的功用主義。

最後就是養懶人的問題﹐基層所以窮有時候不全因為天生不幸﹐不同定律不能解決這個問題﹐因為沒有辨去細分基層的成因﹐這亦是福利主義常被批評的地方。做又三十六﹐唔做又三十六﹐與我們心目中公平的定義不乎。

很多人對功用主義有錯誤的理解﹐妨忽談功用就好像不道德似的。其實功用主義是眾多道德理論之一﹐主要解釋道德從何而來﹐何謂對何謂錯。哲學家John Stuart Mill所提出的功利主義的吸引力在於沒有既定立場﹐不需要神喻亦不需要無中生有的規條﹐由客觀的事實結果去決定道德立場﹐在一般人眼中功利主義的定義﹐就是要為最多人追求最好的生活。其實這個定義不太準確﹐功利主義可以細分為三個層面。

1. 何謂好﹐何謂功用
   傳統上功用主義好的定義是快樂﹐認為快樂是人所追求的共同值價。若人生只是追求快樂﹐全人類也吃食了會興奮迷幻藥不就是功用最大化嗎﹖所以人追求的值價很明顯不單只是快樂﹐還有其他的值價如豐富的生命﹐不同的人生經驗﹐甚至有時會是用痛苦辛勞換來的成功感。不過這又衍生出Matrix的問題﹐若單單經驗就是好的話﹐把全人類全捉入虛擬世界不就是功用最大化嗎﹖這不是我們落於見到的事﹐擁有創作一首詩的體驗﹐是等擁有同創作出一首詩這一個成果。

另一派的理論把好定義為人的自由意願﹐功用最大化就是滿足最多人的意願。可是很多人的意願不一定是好﹐甚至對自身有害﹐例如抽煙吸毒嗜賭等﹐滿足最多人的意願不能擔保結果一定是最好。其次意願會受環境因表影響﹐心理上會選擇次一等的意願﹐而不是真正的理想。例如酸葡萄心理作祟﹐生得醜就現實地說自己不希罕當港姐。可是就算每個人是足夠知識和理性﹐在天資家垃大至相若的情況下﹐所選擇的意願也會各不相同。現實上沒有一條公式可以衡量不同的意願的功用﹐更枉論說計算功用最大化。

功用的定義雖然在理論上不完美﹐但在實施中可以用相應的作出補救。加強教育鼓勵知識流通可以讓人作出最佳的理性選擇。不分配直接的意願﹐改為分配可以間接該意願實現的資源﹐就可以繞過量化不同意願的問題。功用主義中好的定義﹐大約可以最多的資源﹐最有效率的生產力去決定。

1. 何謂對﹐如何最大化
   一件事情是對是錯﹐在功用主義的角度去看是最終的結果決定一切。姑勿論選擇那一個好的定義﹐只要一件事最終可以把功用最大化﹐那就是正確合乎道德的事情。這個推論產生出幾個問題。

很多時候我們根本不可能預知結果﹐事後功用是否最大化也無從考證。

若只是向前看只論結果的話﹐那就會忽略歷史因素的考慮﹐可能以功用最大化為理由﹐違反遵守諾言履行合約等基本道德精神。例如債仔可以對債主說﹐有錢應該不還而要捐給宣明會﹐因為非洲的飢民比債主更需要那筆錢。

若以滿足最多人的意願為前題﹐不能排除有人的意願意明顯有道德問題﹐如種族歧視或虐殺施暴的變態﹐這很明顯與我們的道德相違。例子有古羅馬的奴隸競技遊戲﹐殺幾個奴隸就可以帶給全城歡樂。

最詭異的論點是功用主義的矛盾﹐正因為在應用層面上有這麼多問題﹐不實行功用主義才可以把功用最大化。至少對大部份民眾日常生活而言﹐記著要遵守一套道德規律就足夠了﹐不用凡事也作功用的計算。功用的計算就留給學者去做﹐制定政策推廣那套道德規律。不過這就會成為精英主義﹐像英國在舊殖民地的半愚民政策統治。

1. 何謂最大化﹐何謂平等
   功用主義的有兩個南轅北轍基礎理論﹐去解釋為什麼我們要支持功用主義。

第一個理論是假定每個人的意願也是平等﹐用邊際效益計算﹐所以每個人的利益要均分﹐得出平等就是等同功用最大化。問題是邊際效益的假設不一定成立﹐每個人的對社會的供獻和需求不同﹐像份餅仔般把資源均分很有可能不是得出資源最大化的結果。

第二個理論從相反的方向入手﹐把對的定義介定為功用最大化的結果﹐不論採用那一個功用的定義﹐資源的分配就是要把功用最大化。資源不一定要平均分配﹐可以是資源集中去提高生產力創造更多資源。問題是這個理論把人平等地視為功用的工具﹐與傳統人本道德理論不乎。不過也有哲學家支持這個想法﹐例如尼采認為創造是最高的道德﹐所以大部份凡人應該支持小部份天材去創新改進社會。

功用主義發源於十八世紀啟蒙改革年代﹐當時的社會由無能的貴族操控﹐以大部份人民利益為出發點的功用主義﹐就很自然成為改革的核心思想。在今天西方民主社會中﹐大部份人民的利益已經受到相當程度的保障﹐課題變成保障小部份不同聲音的利益。由於功用主義在功用的定義很空泛﹐由左至右不同的政治光譜的派系﹐也有其對功用不同的見解﹐得出的最大化的結果也不盡相同。不過各個政治派系有一個共通點﹐就非常強調重視理性的結果論﹐因為結果是檢定該推行什麼政策的唯一方法。