对何谓人间善的生活的追问与解答贯穿 了人类精神努力的历史，现代自由主义的答案是:这个问题没有唯一的答案。因此，善的生活只能诉诸个人的自我选择。人们不仅应该有平等的权利,而且应该有能力根据自己的良知选择自己的信仰，确立自己的道德准则和生活方式一 一这就是经典的个人主义的要义。而作为这一答案及其论证的前提的，是个体自我的地位与权利的绝对独立性和优先性证明。然而，在自由主义的每一个发展阶段，这种证明都不成功。 自由主义的“自我”以价值多元论为前提，经由早期知识论奠基，被确立为一切价值的内在根源。因此，从笛卡尔开始了，道德根源日益内在化。洛克以欲望作为自我的道德根源，并以此论证个体的自由。基于欲望自我的幸福论伦理学随即成为启蒙主流思想的共享信条，但由此论证的自我及人类几乎成为鄙俗的动物，引起了卢梭和康德的反动并重建了 自我的德性之维，但也重新制造了自我的灵肉对立。欲望与德性总是无法调和的困扰，使得苏格兰启蒙运动干脆声称:自我的本性有着根本缺陷，不存在那种理想的完美性。尽管其内部存在大量争议，但古典自由主义自我论的共同品格乃是个人主义，它在实践中造成的尖锐矛盾导致国家主义的抬头，并在20世纪带来了灾难性的后果。 当代自由主义开始于对二战以来极权主义的深刻反省和强烈反弹。针对国家对个人新的奴役的威胁，哈耶克激烈地重申免于强制的个人自由，但这种消极性的自由却与其个人自发性所内含的积极自由 自相矛盾。伯林同样出于对极权主义灾难根源的反思而探讨“经验的自我”及其自由。他是第一个把在哈耶克那里不纯粹的消极自由主题化的思想家。为了避免自我概念通过积极自主形态向形上自我滑转，从而走向集体主义和国家主义的 “大我”，并克服哈耶克那里消极自由和积极自由的自相矛盾，伯林干脆就把自我锁定在经验形态和政治领域，只认消极自由。但抽掉了自我的所有积极内容和主动性之后，经验自我成了一具自我的空壳，既无法自主行动，也无能保障其 “私人领地”。同时，与哈耶克一样，这种极端的个体自我及其自由观念还带来了价值的绝对无公度性、自由与平等正义的对立。 罗尔斯作为当代自由主义的集大成者，试图一揽子解决积极自由与消极自由、康德式道义普遍主义与经验适用性、个人自由与社会平等公正一 等等的所有矛盾。然而，其方案最终毁于一连串的悖论:道义论的正义首要性对自我优先性的要求，使自我仍然成为无目的无内容的先验抽象;正义环境对经验欲求的依赖又使自我他律化，从而与自由主体的 自律性要求相抵触;无知之幕对自我所有经验知识和身份的遮蔽，终至正义原则的选择主体别无选择。一连串失败的历史表明，自我论的困难不可能在自由主义范围内得到解决。 自我与善的关系，本质上乃是个人与其社会历史的关系。在马克思主义的视野里，人既受动而又能动于自然、社会及其历史。要言之:个人与其社会历史是一个相互生成的过程。只有借助这样一种辩证统一的理解，我们 才有可能回到解决自由主义自我论难题的真正出发点。那么，自我在生活世界的真实存在也许应该是:自我只有介入了他者的视野，自我才成为自我，他者也才成为他者，自我才具有独立性和自由，从而“我们”也才成为我们;自我只有由目的构成，才能现实地选择和拥有目的与诸善。进而，自我正是处于社会中才能变革社会，正是处于历史中才能推动并创造历史。

The questioning and answering of what is the goodness of human life pass through the whole history of human spirit efforts, and the modern liberalists' answer is: there is no unique answer to this question. Therefore, the goodness of life can only be based on the individual choice. Human should not only have equal rights, but also have the ability, based on his conscience, to choose his own belief, moral value and way of life——this is the essence of classic individualism.And the precondition of this answer and its argumentation is the absolute independence and priority of the individual(including its status and rights). However, at each stage of the development of liberalism, this argumentation never succeed. Basing on th early theory of knowledge,‘the ego" of liberalism has been estabilished to be the inner source, with the value pluralism as its precondition. Therefore, the source of morality is becoming more and more internal ever scince Descartes. Locke took desire to be the moral source of ego and argued the liberty of individual on this account. And the sel-happiness ethics, which is based on the desire of oneself, became the common law of all the mainstream thoughts of enlightment. But during this argument, ego and human nearly became vulgar animal, which caused the opposition of Rousseau and Kant. They reconstructed the dimension of morality of ego and of course rebuilt the antithesis of Body and Soul. Just because of this endless turblence of desire and morality, the Scottish Enlightenment claimed: there are essential flaws in the nature of ego and there is no such thing as ideal perfection. But the common character of the theory of ego in the Classical Liberalism is Individualism. It causes sharp contradictions in practice and leads to the rise of Nationalism, and brings disastrous consequences in the 20th century. Modern liberalism began from the profound reflection and strong rebound of totalitarianism ever since the World War II. Aiming at the threats of new enslavement to individuals from the country, Hayek strongly reaffirmed personal liberty free from enforcement, but the negative liberty is contrary to his emphasis on active liberty in personal spontaneity sense.Likewise,Berlin discussed “experienced ego”and liberty from the reflection of totalitarianism disaster cause. He is the first thinker who makes the negative liberty thematic which is impure in Hayek's. In order to avoid the concept from transforming to ego through positive independent form, leading to collectivism and nationalism of "greater ego", and also to overcome Hayek's contradiction of negative and positive liberty, Berlin locked ego in the form of experience and political field and only recognized negative liberty. However being taken out all active contents of ego, experienced ego became an empty shell of ego, which can neither act free nor ensure its "private domain". Meanwhile, as Hayek, such extreme individual and liberty concept brought the absolute incommensurable value, and the opposition between liberty and equality and justice. As the master of modern liberty, Rawls was trying to solve the conflicts between positive and negative liberty, Kant morality universalism and universal applicability of experience, individual liberty and social equality and justice and so on. However, the scenario was eventually destroyed by a series of paradox: requirement of justice primacy of morality theory on ego priority makes ego still to be apriori abstract without purposes and contents; dependent of justice environment on experience desire then makes ego heteronomy, leading to contradiction with automaticity requirement of liberty subject; veil of ignorance on all knowledge experience and identity of ego finally makes main principles of justice have no choice. A series of failure history indicate that difficulties of ego can not be solved in the liberty area. The relationship between ego and goodness is essentially human and his life activities, and then is the relationship between human and his social history. In the view of Marxism,human is effected passively by the nature、society and his history,in the mean time effects the nature、society and his history actively.In brief,individuals and their social history are generated mutually. Only in the way of dialectical unification, we might get back to the real origin of solving problems of liberalism and ego. Hence, the real existence of ego in the living world might be: only when ego involves in the other's vision, ego becomes self, the other becomes the other, and ego can have the independence and freedom, and then "we" become to be us. The ego can choose realistically and have own purpose and goodness, only when ego is composed of purposes. Moreover, ego can change the society in the society, and drive and create the history in the process of history.