Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124817
|
| Title: | 喬丹與布寧論同性婚姻
Jordan and Boonin on Same-Sex Marriage Argument |
| Authors: | 王禀寓
Wang, Bing-Yu |
| Contributors: | 鄭光明
王禀寓
Wang, Bing-Yu |
| Keywords: | 同性婚姻
喬丹
布寧
宣告式解法
妥協式解法
same-sex marriage
Jeff Jordan
David Boonin
resolution by accommodation
resolution by declaration |
| Date: | 2019 |
| Issue Date: | 2019-08-07 16:25:01 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 傑夫‧喬丹（Jeff Jordan）提出了一強而有力的反同性婚姻論證。他認為，同性婚姻攸關國家重大倫理爭議，因此需要透過兩種解法解決爭議：宣告式解法（resolution by declaration）或是妥協式解法（resolution by accommodation）。然而，由於同性婚姻並沒有強而有力之理由採宣告式解法，故國家不應予直接宣布同性婚姻通過，須採妥協式解法協調支持方與反對方，不得任何一方完全得勝。
另一學者，戴文．布寧（David Boonin）為喬丹論證提出了完全相反之意見。不同喬丹的訴諸，布寧主張：同性婚姻具有強而有力之理由採宣告式解法。國家不應採妥協式解法，否則會有歧視同性戀者之嫌。此外，布寧還強調同性婚姻的正義在於同性行為，以及同性組織婚姻。喬丹皆把二者混為一談的結果是：即便採妥協式解法仍然無法滿足任何一方。
究竟同性婚姻在這場論戰中的結果為何？國家究竟有沒有理由直接宣布同性婚姻通過？為了能夠解決這個問題，必須同時研究同性行為，因為同性行為無疑是Jordan論證裡的關鍵詞。故筆者將引用麥可‧萊文（Michael Levin）以及帝莫西‧莫非（Timothy F. Murphy）的觀點來檢視喬丹論證，以便筆者在本研究中提出喬丹的論證不足之理由以及國家何以必須以宣告式解法使同性婚姻通過之觀點。
Jeff Jordan has put forward soundest argument ever that is against same-sex marriage. He assumes that same-sex marriage as a public dilemma which needs to be solved by two resolutions: resolution by declaration or resolution by accommodation. However, Jordan acclaims that there’s no such an overriding reason for this dispute to sanction same-sex marriage by declaration. So resolution by accommodation would be the best for same-sex marriage that each side of defender gets some but not all of what they want and thus either side is an absolute winner or an absolute loser.
Another scholar, David Boonin, who accounts different points of view to Jordan. What he demands is that same-sex marriage has overriding reasons for resolution by declaration. Government should sanction same-sex marriage by declaration otherwise it would just be a discrimination to homosexuality. In addition, Boonin emphasizes that same-sex marriage is about marriage and the behavior of homosexuality. Unlike Jordan’s argument, what Jordan’s mistake is to take two different concepts into one category which would lead no one of defenders would completely satisfy by declaration.
What is the consequence of same-sex marriage in this depute? Is it really proper to announce same-sex marriage sanctioned by declaration directly? So as to solve this dispute, the examination of behavior of homosexuality is needed. According this field, my work is to examine the study from Michael, Levin and Timothy F., Murphy. In the end of the research, I will stand for declaration by overriding reasons and also explain what is lacking in Jordan’s argument. |
| Reference: | 英文參考文獻
Boonin, David. (1999). Same-sex Marriage and the Argument from Public Disagreement. In David Boonin and Oddie, Graham (eds.) What`s Wrong? Applied Ethicists and Their Critics (pp. 358-367). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Jordan, Jeff. (1995). Is It Wrong to Discriminate on the Basis of Homosexuality? In David Boonin and Oddie, Graham (eds.) What`s Wrong? Applied Ethicists and Their Critics (pp. 358-367). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Levin, Michael. (1984) Why homosexuality Is Abnormal. In David Boonin and Oddie, Graham (eds.) What`s Wrong? Applied Ethicists and Their Critics (pp. 171-189). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Murphy, F. Timothy. (1987) Homosexuality and Nature－Happiness and the Law at Stake. In David Boonin and Oddie, Graham (eds.) What`s Wrong? Applied Ethicists and Their Critics (pp. 190-197). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
中文參考文獻
柯志明，《無所謂「同性婚姻」：婚姻的本性與價值》，橄欖出版社，2016
米歇爾・傅柯，《性經驗史》，上海世紀出版集團，2015
米歇爾・傅柯，《古典時代瘋狂史》，三聯書店，2005
譚馨・史帕哥，《傅科與酷兒理論》，貓頭鷹出版社，2002 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
哲學系
104154003 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104154003 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU201900420 |
| Appears in Collections: | [哲學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 400301.pdf | 1297Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
