從諮詢同意的運作看歐妮爾與儒家之差異： 以義務的責任向度談起 ; From the Operation of Informed Consent to Compare the Differences Between O’ Neill and the Confucianists : A Perspective of Responsibility Obligation

NCU Institutional Repository > 文學院 > 哲學研究所 > 博碩士論文 > Item 987654321/43662

jsp.display-item.identifier=請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/43662

题名:	從諮詢同意的運作看歐妮爾與儒家之差異：以義務的責任向度談起;From the Operation of Informed Consent to Compare the Differences Between O’ Neill and the Confucianists : A Perspective of Responsibility Obligation
作者:	錢怡君;Yi-chun Chien
贡献者:	哲學研究所
关键词:	責任歸咎;未來風險;共同決策;自律原則;諮詢同意;responsibility blaming;future risk;mutual decisi
日期:	2010-08-02
上传时间:	2010-12-08 14:06:59 (UTC+8)
出版者:	國立中央大學
摘要:	在各道德理論致力於說明其合理建基之基礎在‘正義’或‘關懷’價值普效性時，規範應用的期待可能性、可指引性逐漸喪失，使倫理學流於意見爭辯之場域。若要拾回道德哲學的功能，我們便無法忽視存在的現象脈絡--傳統文化與現代科技的交互共在性。筆者將指出，現代化除了表現在理性對傳統除魅的「離根」（disembedding）現象外，還顯現為行為性質的變異上，這造成責任歸咎模式的真空。因此，本論文擬以自律原則在諮詢同意的運作為討論材料，展示舊有責任體系何以不適切，以及現存主流學說歐妮爾（Onora O’Neill）、貝參與查爾德斯（Tom L. Beauchamp & James F. Childress）之理論雖提出回應，卻對科技行為的集體性（主體共同）、後果未來性（時間共通）仍無法徹底解決。筆者在方法上採取的論證策略是，首先說明儒家與各道德學說間的架構同一，以示其作為普遍道德的潛在可能；其次則主張儒家的內容特殊性上，對諮詢同意及自律原則的詮釋不僅超越正義與關懷中心的倫理學，並且提供責任理論問題的解決之道，走向「返本」（re-embedding）之途。 While other moral theories focused on the universal value of justice and caring, the lost of expectancy on the norm establishment and indication possibility have turned ethics into pure arguments. If we want to restore the functionality of moral philosophy, we cannot ignore existence of current connection on the co-existence of traditional culture and contemporary technology. Author has pointed out that modernization not only reflect on old fashion dismbedding, it has also generated variation on behavior. It is the reason that causing the emptiness on responsibility blaming module. Based on above, this thesis has employed principle of self discipline on consented consultation as discussing material. The purpose is to prove the inappropriateness of old responsibility system. Furthermore, mainstream scholars of today Onora O’ Neill 、Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress have responded to the argument, but they were not able to solve the collectiveness (mutual subjectivity) and future consequence (time universal) of technology behavior. Author uses proof strategy to explain Confucians and other moral theories have possessed same framework and their action represents the potential of universal morality existence. In addition, author stated Confucians theory content has surpassed justice and caring of moral science, which created its uniqueness on consultation consensus and self discipline principle. It also has provided solution to responsibility theory in order to find its way to re-embedding.
显示于类别:	[哲學研究所] 博碩士論文

文件中的档案:

档案	描述	大小	格式	浏览次数
index.html		0Kb	HTML	938	检视/开启

在NCUIR中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.

社群 sharing

数据加载中.....