由倫理的相對論與客觀論探討處理「道德困境」的方法

To Point Out the Methods of Dealing with Moral Dilemmas by Discussing the Theory of Ethical Relativism and Objectivism

朱介國(Jie-Guo Zhu)

《中國文化大學中文學報》 26期 (2013/04) Pp. 205-223

摘要

倫理相對論者與倫理客觀論者立場不同，前者主張道德因人因地因時而異，後者主張道德放諸四海而皆準。在中國古代，孟子可以被視為倫理客觀論者。不過，他也提過「權」的論述，如：「嫂溺援之以手者，權也。」（《孟子．離婁上》）然而，孟子講「權」，在一般人看來，似乎與倫理客觀論者的立場頗有違異。因為「權」者，亦是倫理相對論者如莊子之流者最愛談論之物，《莊子．秋水》云：「知道者必達於理，達於理者必明於權，明於權者不以物害己。」權即「權變」。不過，吾人可以發現，孟子與莊子雖皆講「權變」，但目的不同，孟子的目的仍在實踐道德，莊子卻只在「保身」。職此之故，「權變」非但為「倫理客觀論者」與「倫理相對論者」的公約數，也是目的不同的使用工具。甚至，也因為「權變」，吾人亦可如是言，即「倫理」亦可與「道德」分家，此由倫理相對論者之許多言論與作為，便可見之分曉。故本文之作，目的有二：首先，釐清「倫理」與「道德」之關係，是否因為「權」的關係，讓「倫理」可以與「道德」脫鉤，甚至到達為「罪惡」服務的地步。這也是「倫理」令人垢病之處。其二，討論「倫理」應如何解決「道德困境」，究竟應維護「道德」，抑或為「利益」服務，抑或可以二者兼顧。

關鍵字

倫理相對論 ； 倫理客觀論 ； 權變 ； 道德困境 ； 孟子 ； 莊子

並列摘要

The position of ethical relativists is different from that of ethical objectivists. The former argues that morals are sometimes valid and sometimes invalid according to the conditions in which they are practiced, the latter holds that some morals are recognized and validated by the whole mankind. In ancient times of China, Mencius can be regarded as an ethical objectivist. However, he also mentioned the statement of quan (權). He said, ＂When the sister-in-law is drowning, to rescue with the hand is the presentation of quan.＂Such a statement makes himself deviate from the stance of ethical objectivists. For Zhuang Zi, the ethical relativist was also fond of talking about quan. He said, ＂A man who knows Tao must understand reason. A man who understands reason must catch on quan. A man who catches on quan will not be harmed by dangerous things.＂ The word quan is sometimes called quan bian (權變). Although Mencius and Zhuang Zi both referred to quan bian, we still can discover the truth that the former was to practice morals and the latter was to protect the self. Therefore, quan bian is not only the shared concept of both ethical relativists and ethical objectivists but also the implement with different aims to resolve their moral dilemmas. Because of this, we are able to affirm that sometimes ethics and morality do not necessarily have to stand on the same side. We can see this clearly in many comments expressed by ethical relativists. In this way, there are two main purposes for writing this thesis. The first one is to clarify the relation between ethics and morality and to make it clear whether ethics and morality will be separated on account of quan or even to serve the Evil just because of practicing quan. This is also what ethics is blamed for. The second purpose is to discuss how ethics should resolve ethical or moral dilemmas, and what the mission of ethics is. Whether ethics should practice morality, gain profits, or to achieve both?

並列關鍵字

ethical relativism ； ethical objectivism ； quan bian ； moral dilemma ； Mencius ； Zhuang Zi

參考文獻

Gordon E Newman, “What is the difference between morality and ethics?” Ezine@rticles. http://ezinearlicles.com/?What-Is-the-Difference-Between-Morality-and-Ethics?&id=6171320/ (accessed July 1, 2012).

《韓非子．外儲說左上》

Serra, Juall Pablo(2010).What is and what should pragmatic ethics be? Some remarks on recent scholarship.European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy.2(2),100.

Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer, “What is ethics,” Markkula Center For Applied Ethics, http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/whatisethics.html/(accessed July 2, 2012).

Ku Hung-ming, The Spirit of the Chinese People (Peking: The Commercial Press, 1922), 57.