:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:論儒家現實擁有判準理論與等差之愛原則的人類胚胎觀點
書刊名:國立臺灣大學哲學論評
作者:孫效智 引用關係
作者(外文):Sun, Johannes Hsiao-chih
出版日期:2011
卷期:42
頁次:頁107-148
主題關鍵詞:儒家胚胎位格現實擁有判準位格漸進論社會性位格不傷害原則ConfucianismEmbryoPersonhoodActual-possession criterionGradualismSocial personhoodNon-maleficence
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(1) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:7
  • 點閱點閱:64
摘 要 本文旨在探討當代儒家在位格理論上所提出的「儒家現實擁有判準」 理論及「等差之愛」原則,以及它們對於人類胚胎的觀點。「儒家現實擁有 判準」(Confucian actual-possession criteria)是區別位格(person)與非位格 (non-person)的一種理論,該理論及由之衍生出來的「儒家位格漸進論」 (Confucian gradualism)、「儒家社會性位格論」(Confucian social personhood) 是本文首先要加以探討的幾個儒家位格理論,這些理論對於人該如何看待人 類胚胎乃至如何看待人提出了非常具爭議性而值得探討的看法。其次,本文 進一步要探討訴諸儒家「等差之愛」原則以證立「為了醫學進步及人類福祉 的理由而許可傷害人類胚胎」的主張。 本文主張,無論「儒家現實擁有判準」、「儒家位格漸進論」或「儒家 社會性位格論」等概念,都無法從儒家思想中推導出來,而且也與儒家思 想互不相容。至於以儒家「等差之愛」原則來證立犧牲胚胎的作法,不僅 證據薄弱,從「不傷害」(first, do no harm)原則的角度來看,更是站不住 腳的。
Abstract The aim of this article is to critically explore both the theories of “Confucian actual-possession criteria” and “the Confucian principle of love of gradation” and their views on the moral status of human embryos. “Confucian actual-possession criteria”, as accounts proposed for distinguishing person from non-person, and related ideas of Confucian gradualism and Confucian social personhood are discussed first. Their views on the moral status of human embryos are significant, though controversial, and therefore worthy of in-depth analysis. The article discusses then the claim appealing to “the Confucian principle of love of gradation” to justify the destructive use of human embryos for the sake of the welfare of humankind. I argue in this paper that none of the aforementioned Confucian theories of personhood is derivable from nor compatible with Confucianism. Moreover, the justification of sacrificing embryos based on “the Confucian principle of love of gradation” is not only ungrounded but also untenable from the viewpoint of the basic principle of non-maleficence.
期刊論文
1.李瑞全(20040800)。從儒家倫理論母親胎兒關係。應用倫理研究通訊,31,56-61。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.孫效智(20071000)。人類胚胎之形上與道德地位。國立臺灣大學哲學論評,34,41-85。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.李瑞全(1999)。胚胎之道德地位。應用倫理研究通訊,12,2-5。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.邱仁宗(1998)。論“人”的概念。哲學研究,9,26-35。  延伸查詢new window
5.Tsai, Daniel Fu-chang(2001)。How Should Doctors Approach Patients? A Confucian Reflection on Personhood。Journal of Medical Ethics,27(1),44-50。  new window
6.Tsai, Daniel Fu-chang(2005)。Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Debates: A Confucian Argument。Journal of Medical Ethics,31(11),635-640。  new window
圖書
1.Spaemann, Robert(1996)。Personen, Versuche über den Unterschied zwischen etwas und jemand。Stuttgart。  new window
2.Fingarette, Herbert(1972)。Confucius: the Secular as Sacred。New York:Harper and Row。  new window
3.Singer, Peter(1995)。Practical Ethics。Cambridge University Press。  new window
4.李瑞全(1999)。儒家生命倫理學。臺北:鵝湖出版社。  延伸查詢new window
5.項退結、Brugger, Walter(2004)。西洋哲學辭典。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
6.Legge, James(1991)。The Chinese Classics: with a Translation, Critical and Exegetical Notes, Prolegomena, and Copious Indexes。Taipei。  new window
7.Heidegger, Martin(2003)。Holzwege。Vittorio Klostermann。  new window
8.Kant, Immanuel(1785)。Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten。Riga, Johann Friedrich Hartknoch (AK IV, 385-463)。  new window
9.Sun, Johannes Hsiao-chih(2000)。Are All Human Beings Persons?。The Moral Status of Persons: Perspectives on Bioethics。Amsterdam。  new window
10.Warren, Mary A.(1993)。The Personhood Argument in Favor of Abortion。Life and Death: A Reader in Moral Problems。Boston。  new window
11.Fan, Rui-ping(2000)。Can We Have a General Conception of Personhood in Bioethics?。The Moral Status of Persons: Perspectives on Bioethics。Amsterdam。  new window
12.Feinberg, Joel(1980)。Abortion。Matters of Life and Death。Philadelphia。  new window
13.Singer, Peter(1989)。All Animals Are Equal。Animal Rights and Human Obligations。New Jersey。  new window
其他
1.數位經典。孟子全文,http://www.chineseclassic.com/index.htm, 20110301。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE