【摘要】 通过对两个典型案例的反事实推理发现,基于斯科特道义经济学的"生存伦理"在解释中国农民工维权抗争行动时遭遇到新的困境。案例分析表明,并非所有农民工维权抗争行为都是从生存伦理出发的,"底线正义"被践踏是农民工抗争行为尖锐化的根本原因。道义政治学的"底线正义"比道义经济学的"生存伦理"显示了更强的解释力。"底线正义"是"生存伦理"的重要补充,二者的根本分歧在于"恢复道义"与"为道义而道义"。道义政治学"底线正义"范畴的价值在于开启了新的观察视域与学术关怀,同时也是提示制度制定者与执行者走出"父爱主义陷阱"的理论地图。在社会转型期,守住"底线正义"比追求乌托邦式的公平正义更为切实可行,也是当务之急。更多还原

【Abstract】 In domestic academic discussion,the studies of protest behavior of Chinese peasants were deeply affected by the"Scott tradition",and it permeated into the studies of protest behavior. By counterfactual reasoning on two typical cases,we found that,the"Subsistence Ethics",which came from Scott’s moral economy,has encountered a new dilemma,when it was applied to interpret Chinese migrant workers protest action. The cases studied show that,the most important cause of off-farm workers protest which becomes more and more acute,is that the"bottom justice"was being spoiled. And it showed that the"bottom justice",which came from moral politics,has more powerful interpretation than"Subsistence Ethics". The"bottom justice" is a very important supplement for the"Subsistence Ethics". The fundamental difference between the two is that the former is"for the moral",while the latter is to"restore the moral". The value of"bottom justice"is to open a new view to observation and academic care,and it presents a theory map for policymakers to go out of the"Paternalism trap". In the transitional society,to hold the"bottom line justice"is more feasible and urgent than to pursuit the utopian fairness and justice.更多还原