Devil Red

永續發展與民主政治：審議式民主理論初探
　http://www.scu.edu.tw/politics/member/a-hon/ESSAY83.htm
一、前言
我們生處在一個生態危機的時代。生態環境日益遭受的破壞，迫使我們必須面對種種新的挑戰與難題。我們究竟應該如何因應這些挑戰與難題？民主是解決環境危機的必然途徑嗎？在一切以「民意」為依歸的時代，人民對環境議題的意見該如何呈現？
在七○年代，以民主程序解決環境危機的主張，遭受許多的批判(Hardin,1968;Ophlus,1977;Helibour1980)。批評者認為，在現有的多元政治以及代議民主制下，人民只顧追求自己的私利，個人不僅不願意從事環境保護的行動，也不願意對其私利行為造成的環境破壞，有深刻的體認及負責，從而導致「共有地的悲劇」(The Tragedy of Commons)。因此我們只能在兩個方案中做抉擇：任憑現存的經濟行為繼續摧殘生態環境；或者我們必須放棄民主的形式，尋求一個具有生態理念的巨靈(Leviathan)。

Brazen China
Saturday, March 12, 2005; Page A18
PERHAPS CHINA'S Communist leadership was worried that the world would get the wrong idea from the recent flurry of conciliatory gestures and concessions it has exchanged with the government of Taiwan -- steps that have suggested the possibility of a civilized and peaceful rapprochement between the neighbors. In any case, President Hu Jintao has now made clear that Beijing's policy of openly threatening Taiwan with a war of aggression remains intact. The centerpiece of this month's meeting of the rubber-stamp National People's Congress is "anti-secession" legislation that legally binds China to attack the island -- a move that likely would mean a military conflict with the United States -- if it fails to meet China's political demands. Chief among these is that Taiwan's democratically elected president, Chen Shui-bian, drop one of the central planks of his platform, which is reform of Taiwan's constitution.
Mr. Chen hasn't taken any steps toward the constitutional reform, which in any case would be largely cosmetic. Since suffering defeat in a legislative election in December, he has been reaching out to China; he even struck a deal with a pro-Beijing opposition leader in which he pledged to work to relax investment and transport restrictions and reiterated promises not to seek independence for Taiwan. Mr. Hu's answer is to mandate, by law, that peaceful democratic political activity on Taiwan trigger invasion by China. This extraordinary bellicosity is backed up by deeds: Last week Beijing announced a 12 percent increase in its defense budget, continuing years of double-digit growth that have made it the largest military spender in the world after the United States. In recent years the buildup has been designed to prepare for an invasion and to repel U.S. forces that might seek to intervene. Hundreds of missiles have been deployed within range of Taiwan, and new surface ships and submarines have been purchased from Russia.
In sum, a totalitarian Chinese government has openly renewed its resolve to wage war and is working hard to acquire the means to do so. Which brings us to the European Union, which is preparing to lift its embargo on arms sales to China despite appeals and warnings of the Bush administration and Congress. France and Germany -- fierce opponents of military force when used by the United States against a vicious dictator -- remain eager to sell weapons systems to a regime that has formally committed itself to aggression against a democracy. Rather than joining with the United States to help keep the peace in Asia, they would cater to the country that promises to break it. In effect, the Europeans place their own narrow commercial interests -- which they pursue in competition with U.S. companies -- above security cooperation with their NATO ally. It is a grossly irresponsible policy.

壹、就已所知，說明何謂本體論、認識論、方法論？並舉例說明之。
（一）本體論的內涵
　　本體論（Ontology）是在討論被調查事物的本質（essence）。本體論研究了存在的本體，究竟是一物？抑或二物或多物？這便產生了一與多的數量問題。故就本體論的數量而言，一般上分為一元論（Monism），或稱單元論（Singularism），二元論（Bualism）、多元論(Pluralism)。簡稱單元論與多元論。另外，本體論研究存在的本體，究竟為物質？抑或精神？這就產生了心與物的問題。故就本體的性質而言，一般而言分為唯物論（Materialism）、唯心論(Ｓpiritualism)。
1.單元論與多元論
單元論是英哲華德為避免一元論此名稱和心物問題的一元論混淆，故另以單元論一詞來代替。單元論認為宇宙是一個基本原素演化而成，或以宇宙的本體是一個個體的存在（One Individual Being）。其意味主張「唯一」與「不動」。而反對「多」與「變動」。而單元論的思惟方法，多為演繹法的、辯證法。例如：柏拉圖以至善的理念，為一絕對原理，理念屬於「模型」，現象則是依此模型而被型塑出來的。

何謂後現代？後現代與知識的合法性處境有何關係？
張政遠
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/1881/ecrits/postmodern.html
1. 時下對於「後現代」的所謂討論

Introduction to Habermas's Discourse Ethics
Habermas situates the moral point of view within the communication framework of a community of selves. He moves Kant's categorical imperative beyond its 'monological' reflection by demanding that we emphatically take into consideration the viewpoints of all who would be affected by the adoption of a certain moral action or normative claim. In a similar vein, he 'lifts' Rawls' veil of ignorance and demands that we participate in a discourse where all are fully aware of the other's perspectives and interpretations.
This move toward a 'dialogical form of practical reason' is incumbent upon 'post modern societies' where an irreducible plurality of 'goods' conditions and limits the horizon for moral conversation. Morality comes to represent duties and obligations within a just society -- a society in which 'rights' trump competing 'goods' in circumstances of conflict. (r.c.)
In addition to the following, see "The Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas" by Antje Gimmler.)

Dr. Antje Gimmler
Lehrstuhl für Philosophie II
Universität Bamberg
96045 Bamberg
ab 1. Nov.: Philipps Universität Marburg

二十一世紀道德哲學的開發與困境──女性主義關懷倫理學概說
http://www.mcu.edu.tw/admin/future/educlass/text/content/fang/06/1.doc
作者：方志華　職稱：實踐大學中等教育學程兼任講師
　　　　前　言
女性主義者常予人極端激烈的形象，但弔詭的是，女性主義者所提倡的倫理學說──關懷倫理學，其實是提倡和平、關懷的學說主張，但其所主張的人性和社會改革全面開發的倫理學說，的確需要基進的(註一)改革心態。在進入二十一世紀倒數計時的此刻，了解女性主義關懷倫理學也可以作為關心和了解未來人類道德可能方向的一個起點。

道德論證問題在基本倫理學上—目的論與義務論之爭
孫效智
http://210.60.194.100/life2000/professer/johannes/articles/2.teleogie%20deontologie.htm
導言：

兩種道德判斷—論「道德善惡」與「道德正誤」的區分
孫效智
http://210.60.194.100/life2000/professer/johannes/articles/3morally%20good.htm
　　許多哲學家都曾經大聲疾呼過：在有效的學術討論之前，必須先賦予觀念精確的定義，才能避免各說各話的混淆（註1）。以倫理學而言，它所處理的對象是「善惡是非」這類複雜的觀念，精確定義的重要，就更是不容忽視了。「道德善惡（或好壞）」（morally good/evil）與「道德正誤（或對錯）」（morally right/wrong）的區分，正是當代倫理學致力於精確定義的一種嘗試。
　　簡單地說，道德判斷的對象有兩種，而且只有兩種，一個是人，另一個則是人所從出的事物，好比行為或典章制度等（註2）。對應這兩種不同的道德判斷，有一些倫理學家用不同的評價術語來區隔它們。這就是所謂「道德善惡」與「道德正誤」的區別。「道德善惡」用以評價人的道德性；「道德正誤」則用來描述行為的道德品質。這項區別在哲學上可以溯源到莫爾（G. E. Moore）的倫理學原理（Principia Ethica）（註3）。德國學者敘勒（B. Schü ller）再將它引入倫理神學的探討中（註4）。

從倫理學行為理論談結果主義
孫效智
http://210.60.194.100/life2000/professer/johannes/articles/1.Konsequentialismus.htm
引論
　　莫爾（G. E. Moore）在「倫理學原理」（Principia Ethica）一書中，開宗明義地指出，在「善行是什麼」這一問題上，首先必須處理的是「善」的定義，而不是「行為」。因為，「善」是一個模糊不清的概念，而「行為」則清晰明瞭，沒有什麼可爭議之處【1】。莫爾這個看法無疑主導了本世紀分析倫理學的方向，使得後來的倫理學家多半都把注意力集中在「善」的觀念上，而較忽視倫理學行為理論（Handlungstheorie der Ethik）的探討。然而，從基本倫理學發展的現況來看，儘管倫理學家對於善的觀念作了許多後設的分析，但是在「如何評斷行為的善惡」這個基本的問題上，卻仍沒有清楚的答案。這使人不得不質疑，「行為」是否真是像莫爾所認為的那麼簡單明瞭？很顯然，「行為」如果是容易掌握的觀念，那麼，行為的哪些因素決定它的道德品質，就不應該是困難的問題。事實卻正好相反，當代基本倫理學之所以引起許多爭議，正是由於在這個問題上無法達成共識的緣故。最明顯的例子就是在目的論（teleology）的討論中，有關結果主義（consequentialism）的爭論。