- 期刊
- OpenAccess
十七世紀英國內戰的良知問題：「人民是否得以動武反抗暴君？」
A Case of Conscience of the English Civil War: Whether the people could resist a tyrant?
摘要
本文環繞在十七世紀英國的重大良心課題「人民是否得以動武反抗暴君？」，呈現的是國王陣營與議會陣營雙方引述的道德法則，用以說服人民支持其陣營的軍事行動。除結論以外，本文分六節，第一節陳述十七世紀英國的良知理論和原則，它們是由一群教士或稱決疑論者(casuists)所提出，其內容構成了當代良心理論的基本架構。第二節說明決疑論者針對此重大課題的意見，其說主張人民得以不服從君王的非法命令，但人民不論在任何情況下皆不得反抗君王。第三節則呈現國王派與議會派所運用的良知原則，尤其是雙方陣營接同意的論點為何。接著第四節至第六節則按照良知原則的三個重要來源，也就是自然、聖經、與人間律法，分述兩陣營推演出的不同主張。本文的發現主要有二：(1)國王派與議會派在此爭議中分享著甚多論點，包括良知原則的來源與良知權威，並且雙方皆同意人民得以不服從君王的非法命令，以及君王濫用合法的法律不足以合理化人民以武力反抗。(2)國王派與議會派獲致不同結論的關鍵，在於他們對於聖經經文與人間律法的詮釋有著不同的見解。
並列摘要
This article focuses on a very important case of conscience of the English Civil War: whether the people could resist a tyrant? It investigates how royalists and parliamentarians, by showing the moral principles related to this case, persuaded the conscience of people to take up arms. The first section shows the English casuists’ theory of conscience which consists of the basic principles of cases of conscience during the seventeenth century. The second section reveals the viewpoints of the English casuists about the case of the English Civil War, and the answer they gave was that the people could disobey the unlawful command of a king, but by no means could they resist their sovereign. Demonstrating the moral principles both sides used when arguing the case, the third section focuses on the points both sides shared with each other. Then, the following three sections reveal both sides’ different interpretations of the moral principles derived from nature, Scripture, and human laws. The findings are two-fold: (1) both sides shared many important points on this case, including the sources of the moral principles of conscience and its authority. Moreover, both sides agreed that the people could disobey the unlawful command of a king, and that the King’s abusing laws cannot justify the people’s taking up arms. (2) Since both sides had different interpretations on verses of Scripture and on laws of the kingdom, royalists and parliamentarians reached a different conclusion on the case. Royalists maintained that the people could not resist a tyrant, while parliamentarians held the contrary view.