博碩士論文 91124002 詳細資訊




以作者查詢圖書館館藏 以作者查詢臺灣博碩士 以作者查詢全國書目 勘誤回報 、線上人數:10 、訪客IP:3.228.24.192
姓名 沈寶瀠(Pao-Yin Shen)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 哲學研究所
論文名稱 當代西方兒童與成人平權爭議之探討
相關論文
★ 對佛洛依德之自我發展歷程的剖析★ 賣淫的道德研究--當代西方性倫理學中的辯論
★ 隱私(權)議題中化約主義與功能主義之探究★ Nancy Fraser的正義理論:從經濟重分配、文化認可到政治代表權
★ 論資本主義之下的家務勞動──馬克思主義與女性主義的觀點和爭論★ 智能障礙者性權探究
★ 2009-2011台灣性交易修法歷程 ─「除罪化」何以轉為「娼嫖皆罰,特區除外」?
檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [相關文章]   [文章引用]   [完整記錄]   [館藏目錄]   [檢視]  [下載]
  1. 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
  2. 已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
  3. 請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。

摘要(中) 一般認為,當代兒童權利運動的進步,1989年的「聯合國兒童權利公約」,是一重要的里程碑;此公約讓兒童權利有官方的法源依據,促進與保障兒童基本人權,然而,這並不代表擁有該公約的基本權利,兒童在道德上就如成人一樣受到尊重,也不代表兒童所獲得的權利是公平的;如果兒童與成人在道德上並沒有差異,那麼為何在權利分配上需受到不同的對待?此即本文所要處理「兒童為何不能與成人享有平等的權利」之問題意識;本文主要以親權主義與解放論對兒童平權的正反論述為主要論域,並將兒童平權限定於道德權利範圍,不涉及其他權利基礎之探究,將只框限於探究在道德權利上,兒童獲得平等權利之可能性。
本文研究進路以親權主義的反對觀點─兒童保護主義論述做為理解之起點,此反對論述基本上由「反兒童平權」論證及「保護論證」兩個論證所構成;前者主要以兒童目前尚無法符合現行成人權利分配的限制,即年齡與能力之限制,予以否決兒童平權。後者則為典型的親權支配論證,此論證不同於從現行權利形態來談兒童權利,而是從訴諸心理學的實證主義,及哲學上的功利主義,以強調兒童本質上的缺失(defects),需借由成人以介入、干預之方式進行保護,才可達到親權主義在保障兒童最佳利益之核心目標,而由於兒童平權將可能與該核心目標有所牴觸,因此駁拒兒童平權。針對親權主義的「反兒童平權論證」,解放論主要攻擊年齡與能力之兩項權利門檻的正相關性,並訴諸「公平原則」,反駁此論證;隨後再對「保護論證」中以介入、干預之保護形式提出反駁,揭示此論證之矛盾,乃顯現於親權主義採用功利主義的辯護路線,將無法合理支持保護兒童最佳利益之結論;解放論更進一步揭露親權主義的保護主義論述本身,乃隱含一種童年意識型態,而此種意識型態抵抗著兒童從權利上獲得更大幅度的自由,一方面只是擴充成人權力之範圍,另一方面,將忽略兒童本身的最佳利益,並進一步對兒童造成常態壓迫的問題。
  
  在兩派正反辯論後,本文結論出兒童平權雖無法突破現行權利分配限制之形態,但兒童平權仍是可能的;以反思解放論的兒童平權論述的可能缺失,並提出此可能性在兩派立論中,可被接受之建議。
摘要(英) In general, in 1989, United Nations adopted the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” which promotes the movement of contemporary children rights. The covention helped children’s rights obtained an officially legal support and protected children’s basic rights. However, its does not signify that children received a moral respect as adults have. Also, it does not mean that children obtained fair rights. If children and adults do not have morally difference, why do them receive a dissimilar treatment of rights distribution? This article is to discuss a conscious argument of “why children cannot possess the same right as adults have”. The skeleton of this dissection will base on positive and negative discussions of Paternalism and Children’s Liberationism, and will limit the children rights on the scope of moral rights to find a possibility for children to obtain an equal rights. All of discussions will not involve in exploring other basic rights.
This article starts with an opposing view of paternalism, that is, base on protectionism to expand all ideas. Basically, the Anti-equal Rights of Children(ARC) argument and protective argument compose the protectionism. The ARC argument is to reject Equal Rights of Children(ERC) by age and ability restriction, that indicates children are disqualify to entail currently adult’s right. The protective argument is a typical parental predominated argument. This demonstration is different from currently type of rights when discusses the children rights, but appeal to psychological Positivism and philosophical utilitarianism. It emphasizes that children have essential defects; therefore, adults’ interference is needed. Thus, paternalism could ensure children’s best interests and achieve its core goal. However, ERC will possibly conflict with paternalism’s core goal, and deny children to obtain the equal rights. Children’s Liberationism directed against Paternalism’s AERC argument by attacking age and ability rights’ positive connection and appeal to “Justice principle” to refute the demonstration. Also, Children’s Liberationism retorts that protective argument’s interfering protection type and reveal Paternalism’ s contradiction, that is, the paternalism by using utilitarianism’s argument which cannot sensible support and protect children’s best interests. Furthermore, Children’s Liberationism revealed that Paternalism’s protectionism implies an ideology of childhood. The ideology resists children obtaining more freedom from rights. It only expands adult’s rights and ignores children’s best interests and causes a normal oppression problem to children.
After positive and negative arguments, this article concludes that equal right for children has its possibility even though equal rights for children cannot break through currently type of restriction of rights distribution. This article also introspects the possible deficiencies from ERC argument of Children’s Liberationism and brings up acceptable suggestions for Children’s Liberationism and Paternalism.
關鍵字(中) ★ 幸福理論
★ 能力測驗
★ 兒童權利運動
★ 家長權力
★ 兒童權利
★ 道德權利
★ 親權主義
★ 解放論
★ 漠然
★ 常態壓迫
★ 年齡主義
★ 生物發展主義
★ 社會建構論
★ 無能力論證
★ 目的系統
★ 菁英主義
★ 童年觀
★ 隔離主義
關鍵字(英) ★ the happiness theory
★ Children’s Liberationism
★ elitist
★ indifferent
★ normal oppression
★ ageism
★ developmentalism
★ paternal power
★ Paternalism
★ incompetence thesis
★ Children’s rights
★ Children Rights Movement
★ moral rights
★ systematic purposes
★ the competence test
★ con
論文目次 目錄
第一章 導 論 ......................... 1
第一節 問題源起 ......................  2
第二節 本文探討之問題與論文結構 ...............  6
第三節 關於本文所用的名詞及補充解釋 ............. 11
第二章 親權主義的年齡門檻及解放論的反駁 ............ 14
第一節 年齡是能力發展的指標 ................  15
第二節 解放論對親權主義的「年齡門檻」之反駁 ........  20
第三節 生物發展主義的矛盾 .................  25
第三章 親權主義的「能力門檻」及解放論的反駁 .......... 29
第一節 時間與能力發展的統計關係 ..............  30
第二節 無能力論證的相互交鋒 ................  32
第三節 能力測試是可行的權利門檻嗎?............  41
對能力測試的反思 ..................... 44
第四章 親權主義的保護主義論述以及解放論之反駁 ......... 47
第一節 對於親權主義的保護論證之反駁 ............  49
第二節 保護兒童還是壓迫兒童? ..............   54
第五章 結 論 ........................  65
參考文獻 ........................  69
參考文獻 西文書目
Archard, David. “Paternalism Defined.” Analysis 50.1(1990): 36-42.
--- Children, Family and the State. England: Ashgate, 2003.
--- Children: Right and Childhood. London: Routledge, 1995.
Ariés, Philippe. Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. Trans. Robert Baldick. New York: Random House, 1962.
Bandman, Bertram. Children’s Right to Freedom, Care and Enlightenment. New York: Garland Publishing, 1999.
Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Ed. J.H. Burns, and H.L.A. Hart. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Blustein, Jeffrey. “Child Rearing and Family Interests.” Having Children. Ed. Onora O’Neill and William Ruddick. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. 115-21.
--- Parents and Children : the Ethics of the Family. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Brandon, E. P. “Rationality and Paternalism.” Philosophy 57(1982): 533-36.
Campbell, Tom D. “The Rights of the Minor: as Person, as Child, as Juvenile, as Future Adult.” Children, Rights, and the Law. Eds. Philip Alston, Stephen Parker, and John Seymour. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. 1-23.
Cohen, Howard. Equal Rights for Children. NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1980.
DeMause, Lloyd. “The Evolution of Childhood.” The History of Childhood. Ed. Lloyd deMause. New York: Jason Aronson, 1974. 1-73.
Dworkin, Ronald. “Paternalism.” Morality and the Law. Ed. Richard A. Wasserstrom. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1971. 107-26.
--- “Paternalism: Some Second Thoughts.” The Theory and practice of autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. 121-29.
Edelman, Peter. “The Children’s Rights Movement.” The Children’s Rights Movement: Overcoming the Oppression of Young People. Ed. Beatrice Gross and Ronald Gross. New York: The Anchor Press, 1977. 203-06.
Eekelaar, John. “The Importance of Thinking that Children have Rights.” Children, Rights, and the Law. Eds. Philip Alston, Stephen Parker, and John Seymour. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. 221-35.
Firestone, Shulamith. The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1970.
Franklin, Bob. Ed. The Rights of Children. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.
--- “Children’ Political Rights.” The Rights of Children. Ed. Bob Franklin. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986. 24-53.
--- Introduction. The Rights of Children. Ed. Bob Franklin. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986. 1-23.
Freeman, Michael D.A. “Taking Children’s Rights More Seriously.” Children, Rights, and the Law. Eds. Philip Alston, Stephen Parker, and John Seymour. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. 52-71.
Goodman, Paul. “Reflections on Children’s Rights.” The Children’s Rights Movement: Overcoming the Oppression of Young People. Ed. Beatrice Gross and Ronald Gross. New York: The Anchor Press, 1977. 140-47.
Graham, Gordon. Contemporary Social Philosophy. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1988.
Harris, John “Liberation Children.” The Liberation Debate – Rights at Issue. Ed. Michael Leahy and Dan Cohn-Sherbok. New York: Routledge, 1996. 135-46.
--- “The Political Status of Children.” Contemporary Political Philosophy: Radical Studies. Ed. Keith Graham. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press, 1982. 35-55.
Hawes, Joseph M. The Children’s Right Movement: A History of Advocacy and Protection. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1991.
Heywood, Colin. A History of Childhood: Children and Childhood in the West from Medieval to Modern Times. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003.
Holt, John. Escape from Childhood. New York: Random House, 1976.
Houlgate, Laurence D. “Children, Paternalism, and Rights to Liberty.” Having Children. Ed. Onora O’Neill and William Ruddick. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. 265-78.
Houlgate, Laurence D. The Child and the State: A Normative Theory of Juvenile Rights. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University, 1980.
James, Allison., Chris Jenks, and Alan Prout. Theorizing Childhood. New York: Teachers College Press, 1998.
Ladd, Rosalind Ekman. Ed. Children’s Rights Re-visioned: Philosophical readings. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1996.
O’Oeill, Onora. “Children’s Rights and Children’s Lives.” Children, Rights, and the Law. Eds. Philip Alston, Stephen Parker, and John Seymour. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. 24-42.
Prout, Alan, and Allison James. Ed. Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood. New York: RoutlegeFalmer, 2003.
--- “A New Paradigm for the Sociology of Childhood? Provenance, Promise and Problems.” Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood. Ed. Alan Prout, and Allison James. New York: RoutlegeFalmer, 2003. 7-33.
--- Introduction. Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood. Ed. Alan Prout, and Allison James. New York: RoutlegeFalmer, 2003. 1-6.
Purdy, Laura M. “Children’s Liberation: A Blueprint for Disaster.” The Liberation Debate: Rights at Issue. Ed. Michael Leahy and Dan Cohn-Sherbok. New York: Routledge, 1996. 147-62.
--- In Their Best Interest?: the Case Against Equal Rights for Children. New York: Cornell University Press, 1992.
Ruddick, William. “Parents and Life Prospects.” Having Children. Ed. Onora O’Neill and William Ruddick. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. 123-37.
--- “When Does Childhood Begin?” Children, Parents and Politics. Ed. Geoffery Scarre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 25-35.
Scarre, Geoffery. “Justice between Generatons.” Children, Parents and Politics. Ed. Geoffery Scarre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 94-14.
--- “Children and Paternalism.” Philosophy 55(1980): 117-24.
Schrag, Francis. “The Child in the Moral Order.” Philosophy 52(1977): 167-77.
--- “The Child’s Status in the Democratic State.” Political Theory 3.4(1975): 441-57.
Tucker, M. J. “The Child as Beginning and End: Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century English Childhood. The History of Childhood. Ed. Lloyd de Mause. New York: Jason Aronson, 1974. 229-57.
Wringe, Colin. Children’s Rights. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.
中文書目
弗利登 (Michael Freeden)原著,孫嘉明、袁建華譯,《權利》,(Rights),台北:桂冠出版社,1998年11月初版。
波茲曼(Neil Postman) 原著,蕭昭君譯,《童年的消逝》(The Disappearance of Childhood),台北:遠流,2003。
白金漢(Buckingham, David)原著,楊雅婷譯,《童年之死-在電子媒體時代長大的兒童》,(After the Death of Childhood: Growing Up in the Age of Electronic Media),台北:巨流,2003。
牛京輝,《英國功用主義倫理思想研究》,北京:人民出版社,2002年4月。
皮亞傑(Jean Piaget),吳福元譯,《兒童心理學》,台北:唐山出版社,1987年11月初版。
洛克(John Locke)原著,中譯本,葉啟芳、瞿菊農譯,《政府論次講》,台北:唐山出版社,1986年7月初版。
洛克原著,傅任敢譯,《教育漫話》,台北:五南出版設,1992年7月初版二刷。
康德原著(德),沈叔平譯,《法的形而上學原理─權利的科學》,北京:商務印書館,1991年
彌爾(John Stuart Mill)原著,郭志嵩譯,《論自由》,台北:臉譜出版社,2004年9月1日。
指導教授 甯應斌(Yin-Bin Ning) 審核日期 2006-7-4
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明