- 學位論文
哈伯瑪斯話語倫理學的證成與應用
Justification and Application of Habermas's Discourse Ethics
摘要
本文主旨在討論當代德國著名的哲學家哈伯瑪斯所提出的「話語倫理學」，闡釋在當代社會的文化衝突中，尤其處於後形上學時代，社會行動如何獲得合理且有效的規範，用以協調公共領域的道德、法律和政治實踐。話語倫理學採取「去先驗化的」（de-transcendental）康德哲學立場，透過語用學的轉向，在理想化條件下，藉由合理的論辯過程中，所證成的一種程序主義的道德理論。本身分為二大部份，一部份是普遍道德規範的證成；另一部份，此規範在法律和政治實踐上的應用，即透過話語原則重構近代實證法律體系。首先，我們闡述哈伯瑪斯哈伯瑪斯作話語和溝通行動基礎的「普遍語用學」（universal pragmatics），釐清語言的在溝通使用中達到相互理解的可能條件為何？其中涉及到真理理論和意義理論的問題。其次，我們進入話語倫理學的主體討論，指出話語倫理學所具有的「道德話語」（moral discourse）特性，與其他實踐理性「倫理話語」（ethical discourse）、和「實用話語」（pragmatic discourse）的差異。同時說明此種主張「正義的優先性」（the priority of the justice）的兩大原則：「普遍化原則」（principle of universalization）和「語話原則」（principle of discourse）如何被證成，並分析與當代主張「善的優先性」（the priority of the good）的「倫理話語」思想上迥異之處。其次，分析作為話語原則應用的法律和政治話語，如何克服當代法律中「正當性」（Legitimität）和「合法律性」（Legalität）的吊詭，在自由主義和共和主義二大民主制之外，轉換成為程序主義的法律典範，建立所謂的「審議政治」（deliberate politics）的民主制典範。再者，為指出話語倫理學的獨特性，特別與當代三種具代表性的思想做比較：羅爾斯（政治自由主義）、傅柯（後現代主義）和泰勒（社群主義），深入分析這些理論在道德和政治實踐的差異性。最後，本文嘗試提出一些批判和補充，作為進一步思考的依據。
並列摘要
In this thesis I attempt to discuss Habermas’s “discourse ethics” and argue how it can provide a possible solution to contemporary moral and political conflicts. Especially, in post-metaphysical times, discourse ethics try to justify the common, reasonable and valid norm to integrate social actions. From a Kantian point of view, but with de-transcendental position, discourse ethics wants to reconstructure a procedural moral theory, its aim is to discuss the conditions of reaching mutual understanding (further, acquire consensus) through discursive process intersubjectively. First, I explain Habermas’s universal pragmatics as the basic of communicative action and discourses, and analyze its components, including theory of truth and meaning. Secondly, I want to discuss how to justify two main principles of discourse ethics: principles of universalization and discourse, and explain their meanings and application. However, Habermas divides the three use modes of practical reason: ethical, moral, and pragmatic. Discourse ethics is a moral discourse, not ethical discourse, the former emphasizes the priority of the justice or right, and the latter claims the priority of the good. I want to analyze their differences. Thirdly, there are two aspects in discourse ethics, one is justification of universal moral norm, and the other is to apply this moral norm to legal or political practices. I attempt to interpret the crisis of the modern legal system (positive law), namely it is insufficient to justify the resource of legitimation alone through legal process, and to explain discourse ethics how to solve this problem. In conclusion, I want to compare discourse ethics with other theories: political liberalism (Ralws), postmodernism (Foucault) and communitarianism (Taylor). Finally, I try to supply some critical and available opinions.
參考文獻
延伸閱讀
- 陳品妤（2011）。哈伯瑪斯「溝通行動理論」之檢視〔碩士論文，國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2011.10536
- 謝欣如（2002）。哈伯瑪斯溝通理論初探。哲學與文化，29(3)，272-291。https://doi.org/10.7065/MRPC.200203.0272
- 沈樹華（1999）。哈伯瑪斯的「公共領域」與「市民社會」理論。公民訓育學報，(8)，553-581。https://doi.org/10.6231/CME.1999(8)21
- 莊世同（2005）。On Humanity and the Education of Jurisprudence。政治與社會哲學評論，(12)，59-94。https://doi.org/10.6523/168451532005030012002
- Yiu, S. N. (2000). Discourse analysis [master's thesis, The University of Hong Kong]. Airiti Library. https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0029-1812201200000208