當代西方兒童與成人平權爭議之探討

NCUIR > College of Liberal Arts at National Central University > Graduate Institute of Philosophy > Electronic Thesis & Dissertation > Item 987654321/4509

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/4509

Title:	當代西方兒童與成人平權爭議之探討
Authors:	沈寶瀠;Pao-Yin Shen
Contributors:	哲學研究所
Keywords:	幸福理論;能力測驗;兒童權利運動;家長權力;兒童權利;道德權利;親權主義;解放論;漠然;常態壓迫;年齡主義;生物發展主義;社會建構論;無能力論證;目的系統;菁英主義;童年觀;隔離主義;the happiness theory;Children’s Liberationism;elitist;indifferent;normal oppression;ageism;developmentalism;paternal power;Paternalism;incompetence thesis;Children’s rights;Children Rights Movement;moral rights;systematic purposes;the competence test;conceptions of childhood;segregation
Date:	2006-06-19
Issue Date:	2009-09-22 09:21:00 (UTC+8)
Publisher:	國立中央大學圖書館
Abstract:	一般認為，當代兒童權利運動的進步，1989年的「聯合國兒童權利公約」，是一重要的里程碑；此公約讓兒童權利有官方的法源依據，促進與保障兒童基本人權，然而，這並不代表擁有該公約的基本權利，兒童在道德上就如成人一樣受到尊重，也不代表兒童所獲得的權利是公平的；如果兒童與成人在道德上並沒有差異，那麼為何在權利分配上需受到不同的對待？此即本文所要處理「兒童為何不能與成人享有平等的權利」之問題意識；本文主要以親權主義與解放論對兒童平權的正反論述為主要論域，並將兒童平權限定於道德權利範圍，不涉及其他權利基礎之探究，將只框限於探究在道德權利上，兒童獲得平等權利之可能性。本文研究進路以親權主義的反對觀點─兒童保護主義論述做為理解之起點，此反對論述基本上由「反兒童平權」論證及「保護論證」兩個論證所構成；前者主要以兒童目前尚無法符合現行成人權利分配的限制，即年齡與能力之限制，予以否決兒童平權。後者則為典型的親權支配論證，此論證不同於從現行權利形態來談兒童權利，而是從訴諸心理學的實證主義，及哲學上的功利主義，以強調兒童本質上的缺失(defects)，需借由成人以介入、干預之方式進行保護，才可達到親權主義在保障兒童最佳利益之核心目標，而由於兒童平權將可能與該核心目標有所牴觸，因此駁拒兒童平權。針對親權主義的「反兒童平權論證」，解放論主要攻擊年齡與能力之兩項權利門檻的正相關性，並訴諸「公平原則」，反駁此論證；隨後再對「保護論證」中以介入、干預之保護形式提出反駁，揭示此論證之矛盾，乃顯現於親權主義採用功利主義的辯護路線，將無法合理支持保護兒童最佳利益之結論；解放論更進一步揭露親權主義的保護主義論述本身，乃隱含一種童年意識型態，而此種意識型態抵抗著兒童從權利上獲得更大幅度的自由，一方面只是擴充成人權力之範圍，另一方面，將忽略兒童本身的最佳利益，並進一步對兒童造成常態壓迫的問題。　　　　在兩派正反辯論後，本文結論出兒童平權雖無法突破現行權利分配限制之形態，但兒童平權仍是可能的；以反思解放論的兒童平權論述的可能缺失，並提出此可能性在兩派立論中，可被接受之建議。 In general, in 1989, United Nations adopted the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” which promotes the movement of contemporary children rights. The covention helped children’s rights obtained an officially legal support and protected children’s basic rights. However, its does not signify that children received a moral respect as adults have. Also, it does not mean that children obtained fair rights. If children and adults do not have morally difference, why do them receive a dissimilar treatment of rights distribution? This article is to discuss a conscious argument of “why children cannot possess the same right as adults have”. The skeleton of this dissection will base on positive and negative discussions of Paternalism and Children’s Liberationism, and will limit the children rights on the scope of moral rights to find a possibility for children to obtain an equal rights. All of discussions will not involve in exploring other basic rights. This article starts with an opposing view of paternalism, that is, base on protectionism to expand all ideas. Basically, the Anti-equal Rights of Children(ARC) argument and protective argument compose the protectionism. The ARC argument is to reject Equal Rights of Children(ERC) by age and ability restriction, that indicates children are disqualify to entail currently adult’s right. The protective argument is a typical parental predominated argument. This demonstration is different from currently type of rights when discusses the children rights, but appeal to psychological Positivism and philosophical utilitarianism. It emphasizes that children have essential defects; therefore, adults’ interference is needed. Thus, paternalism could ensure children’s best interests and achieve its core goal. However, ERC will possibly conflict with paternalism’s core goal, and deny children to obtain the equal rights. Children’s Liberationism directed against Paternalism’s AERC argument by attacking age and ability rights’ positive connection and appeal to “Justice principle” to refute the demonstration. Also, Children’s Liberationism retorts that protective argument’s interfering protection type and reveal Paternalism’ s contradiction, that is, the paternalism by using utilitarianism’s argument which cannot sensible support and protect children’s best interests. Furthermore, Children’s Liberationism revealed that Paternalism’s protectionism implies an ideology of childhood. The ideology resists children obtaining more freedom from rights. It only expands adult’s rights and ignores children’s best interests and causes a normal oppression problem to children. After positive and negative arguments, this article concludes that equal right for children has its possibility even though equal rights for children cannot break through currently type of restriction of rights distribution. This article also introspects the possible deficiencies from ERC argument of Children’s Liberationism and brings up acceptable suggestions for Children’s Liberationism and Paternalism.
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Philosophy] Electronic Thesis & Dissertation

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format

社群 sharing

Loading...