| 摘要: | 明朝陸輯(1515-1552)提出〈禁奢辨〉，主張奢侈的習俗可提供廣大人民生計，故反對政府禁奢。一般人認為中國以儒家為主的主流思想崇儉黜奢，所以〈禁奢辨〉可說是一個與一般印象有別的主張。〈禁奢辨〉已為近年來的一些文獻所注意到，不過目前的文獻似乎認為：與陸輯類似主張的學者都屬「小儒」。總的來說，本文的主要目的乃是想進一步探討：〈禁奢辨〉是否只是一個沒有意義的奇談怪論？因為一個主張如果沒有影響力，則縱使存在過，也沒有意義。但是，直接確認〈禁奢辨〉對思想界或對實際政策是否有影響力，有所困難；這是因為在陸輯之前與之後，雖然有不少思想家或政策執行者有類似的主張（例如，成書於漢朝的《管子》、北宋的范仲淹與清朝的魏源），但是他們幾乎都沒有直接引用他人的說法。所以，本文在探討〈禁奢辨〉對思想界或對實際政策是否有影響力的策略乃是深入分析〈禁奢辨〉，找出陸輯用來支持其主張的基礎有那一些（換言之，我們要分析〈禁奢辨〉到底是由那些更基本的部分構成的）。在找出這些基礎後，我們將進行兩個工作：其一，先比較這些基礎是否是有相似主張的思想家與政策執行者所共享的。其二，這些基礎是否也為中國以儒家為主的主流思想所認可，甚至強調。 本文的另一個研究策略乃是分析以及整理包括儒家在內的中國主流思想關於節儉與奢侈的看法，將之作一個完整的呈現。有了這個完整的面貌，我們自然可以為〈禁奢辨〉定位，釐清它是否真的是一個異類。在分析以及整理儒家關於節儉與奢侈的看法，本文不想作流水帳式的整理，而將從基本哲學的層次去整理。這是因為我們認為儒家學說，尤其宋明理學所強調的新儒家，有高度的一致性，所以，從儒家的核心觀念，可以簡潔而且正確的掌握儒家思想。 換言之，本文可以幫忙釐清一個重要問題：儒家是否真的有反消費傾向？ 西方也有一支著名的奢侈論：Bernard Mandeville（1670-1733）於1714年發表〈蜜蜂寓言〉，本文也理所當然的必須把陸輯的〈禁奢辨〉與之比較。目前文獻已經注意到：這兩個中西雙方的奢侈論，有相同之處，例如：奢侈雖不利於個人，但是卻可以使整個社會更好，也就是所謂的「私人的罪惡，公共的利益」。本文的特色乃是從更深一層的角度比較兩者，亦即，將我們找出〈禁奢辨〉的重要基礎進行比較。 其次，為了比較〈禁奢辨〉與〈蜜蜂寓言〉，本文也將分析、整理傳統西方思想中關於節儉與奢侈的著名看法，包括Adam Smith等古典學派的政治經濟學對於消費對國家財富的影響與定位的看法。 本文的主要目的在探討中西方對於節儉與奢侈的思想，為了正確理解、評價這些思想，我們也將整理現代經濟理論（包括數理經濟）對於節儉與奢侈的看法，尤其關於消費是否有助於經濟發展的看法。 The famous writing of the Judgment of Extravagance by Lu Chi (1515-1552), which had pointed out the extravagance of the rich, could create employment for the poor explicitly. Hence Lu Chi deprecated sumptuary regulations and assured extravagance to enrich people. However, on matters pertaining to consumption and standards of living, it is supposed that traditional Chinese thought has been in favor of saving and frugality and against spending and lavishness. We could find the concept in Judgment of Extravagance is tremendously different from general impression that frugality is a good virtue. However, the existing literatures label such meritocracy, for instance, the Kuan-tzu, Fan Chung-yen and Wei Yuan, who advocate of extravagance as less important philosopher. We are interested in finding out whether the concept of Judgment of Extravagance is really heresy heterodoxy. If it is not influential, it is meaningless even once existed. Nevertheless, it is difficult to evaluate if it is influential from empirical policy directly. We turn to explore the basic logic in the derivation of the advocate of extravagance. And then we proceed in finding out if the basic logic is shared by the other meritocracy and policy makers. Moreover, we will tell if the basic logic is approved even emphasized in the mainstream concept of Confucianism in ancient China. We also provide a full version of the general attitude in the thrifty and extravagance in order to judge if the Judgment of Extravagance is really heresy heterodoxy. We will analyze and sum up the typical philosophy from Neo-Confucianism viewpoint. For it is highly consistent with the main concept of Confucianism. In other words, it helps us to tell if Confucianism is anti-consumption. The Fable of Bees by Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) in 1714 is also well-known in the West. It is noticed in literatures that the common idea existed in both the Fable of Bees and the Judgment of Extravagance, that prodigality is a vice that is prejudicial to the man, but not to the trade. That is private vice leads to public benefit. We will further compare the deep-rooted philosophy between the Fable of Bees and the Judgment of Extravagance. Hence we will endeavor to explore the economic philosophy and method of classicalists in the theme of consumption to the wealth of nation from the Physiocrats to Adam Smith by surveying the representative masterpieces (e.g., An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations) among these economists. Furthermore, For the sake of analysis on the advocate of extravagance in general form, we provide the relevant economic theory (includes mathematical economy) to capture the complete philosophy in consumption. |
