| 摘要: | 本論文探討諾丁如何以道德情感建構她的關懷倫理學理論。諾丁認為關係是人存在的基礎，關懷是道德的基礎。關懷關係有關懷者與被關懷者二方，關懷者的關懷特徵是先有對他人的接受性的關注( receptive attention)，而有同理心( empathy )以及動機的移位( motivational displacement )、承擔性( commitment )以及相互作用( reciprocity )。被關懷者的特徵是接納與承認關懷，回應與相互作用。關懷倫理源自二種道德情感―「自然關懷」與「倫理關懷」。自然關懷是對於他人的痛苦與需要能無困難地因想做就做到。倫理關懷是當自然關懷失敗時的補救，是對於我們被關懷的美好記憶的回應，透過倫理理想與義務感而要求自己去做。諾丁關懷倫理對教育與社會政策做了許多討論與建議。 諾丁關懷倫理學對當代的貢獻是：她把從女性經驗建構的倫理論述推廣為大眾普遍接納的倫理學，這代表女性意識的興盛與女性主義的第二波文化運動。此外她對道德教育與生命教育有貢獻。關懷倫理注重具體情境的論述，以道德情感為動力，以建立、維持、並提升關懷關係為最高目的。這些對傳統倫理學是一個突破與啟發。 諾丁原初的關懷論沒有納入正義論題。所以本論文援引赫德( Virginia Held )關懷與正義的論述以補強諾丁之不足。赫德論述關懷領域應含有正義的訴求，正義領域應含有關懷的訴求。她讓關懷與正義分工合作，策略是以通通有獎的方式，讓各種倫理理論負責不同的社會領域。認為社會措施應該在關懷的氛圍下實施正義。筆者認為赫德只有分配關懷與正義的應用領域與方式，她並沒有從內含上真正融合二者而創造新的論述。所以關懷與正義的問題仍未解決。 另一個理論補強是斯洛特( Michael Slote )的同理心關懷倫理學。他以同理心概念加深關懷的哲學基礎，論述同理心可以會通關懷與正義，會通關懷論與義務論，跨越性別，跨越公私領域等等。諾丁則認為「接受性的關注」( receptive attention)比同理心更早也更重要，而批評斯洛特給同理心加入過多的意義。每個道德理論均有其適用範圍，斯洛特想用一個道德理論涵蓋人類全部的道德生活，是不可能的。筆者認為斯洛特的同理心關懷倫理學只是「同理心倫理學」，他忽略了關懷的其他重要面向與整全意義，而且完全不談關係與關懷的目的―建立、維持並提升關懷關係。所以他的關懷理論很另類。 本論文結尾對關懷論與儒家做了簡要比較研究。二者相似處在於：(1) 作為道德核心的人與關懷有相似的意義。(2) 二者均重視實踐工夫。(3) 儒家差等之愛、推恩與關懷的同心圓非常類似。(4) 二者均以家庭出發而達到仁愛社會或關懷型社會。二者差異在於：(1) 儒家天觀念具有超越意義，諾丁關懷論重視實際具體脈絡，沒有超越概念。(2) 二者在道德根源上，儒家明確以不忍人之心為根源。關懷論以自然關懷與倫理關懷之情感為根源，後又提出母性本能關懷為最早出發點，這樣顯得雜多而不明確。(3) 儒家背了二千多年的歷史包袱，有壓迫女性、維護傳統、家長主義等缺點。關懷論則反傳統，反對壓迫女性，反對家長主義等。(4) 儒家以仁為本，以義禮智為指導原則。諾丁則反對原則。(5) 儒家強調人的道德主體性，類似康德的道德自律。諾丁則強調關係性自我，認為人只有有限的自律。針對以上比較研究，關懷倫理學的發展之一是可以與儒家會通並期能建構儒家關懷倫理學。 In this dissertation I explore how Noddings employ the notion of moral sentiment in her construction of care ethics. Noddings holds that relation is the basis of human existence, and caring relation is the basis of morality. In the caring relation, there are the one-caring and the cared-for. The characteristics of the one-caring are receptive attention, empathy, motivational displacement, commitment, and reciprocity. The characteristics of the cared-for are receiving and recognizing caring. Morality as an active virtue requires two feelings--- the sentiments of natural caring and of ethical caring. For Noddings, natural caring is a kind of effortless act for the relief of the suffering and needs of the other. Ethical caring is a recall of the sweet memory of being cared and help to make good when natural caring failed. It needs ethical effort. Ethical caring succeeds by means of ethical ideal and a sense of obligation. Noddings applies her care ethics to education and social policies, and .many other issues. The major contribution of Noddings’ care ethics is her use of women’s experiences to build an ethical theory and expand it towards a universal ethics. This represents the flourishing of women’s consciousness and a second wave of the movement of culture in the west Feminism. It also contributes to moral education and life education. Care ethics emphasizes moral practice in concrete situation. With the two kinds of moral sentiments, care ethics builds, maintains and enhances caring relation. These are ground-breaking for traditional ethics. In her early theory, Noddings did not deal with the issue of justice. So I introduce Virginia Held’s theory of care and justice to make up the insufficient part of Noddings’ theory. Held argues that justice is needed in the contexts of care and care is needed in the contexts of justice. We need to combine the two in a satisfactory ethics. Anyhow, care must be given priority, we should carry out justice in the atmosphere of care. But I think Held only applies care and justice to different sectors of social affairs, and did not give a real integration of care and justice. So the problem of care and justice is not resolved satisfactorily. Another make up is from Michael Slote’s empathy care ethics. He use the idea of empathy to refine the philosophical foundation of care ethics. He argues that empathy could connect care with justice, care ethics with deontology, across genders, across private and public domains. Slote is ambitious in unifying different thing in moral theory. Noddings holds that receptive attention is more radical and important then empathy. She criticizes Slote putting too much in empathy and neglecting other meanings of care. Slote trys to show that a care-approach makes sense across the whole range of normative moral and political issues. Noddings said this would be a mistake. For it is impossible to have all aspects of moral life explained by one comprehensive theory. I think Slote’s empathy care ethics is merely “empathy ethics”, he lost sight of the whole meaning of caring, and never talked about relation and the target of care ethics---to build, maintain, and enhance caring relation. His care ethics is so different from others. At the end of this dissertation, I did some comparative study between care ethics and Confucianism. I point out there are four aspects of similarities. They are: (1)The meaning of care and of Jen(仁) are resemble. (2) They all emphasis the importance of practice. (3) Confucian love with gradation is resemble to the concentric circles of caring. (4) They all start from family to a humanity or caring society. There are five aspects of difference between them : (1) Confucianism takes “heaven”(天) as a transcendental concept, and have a important position in moral theory. Noddings reject transcendental, abstract ideas in her theory. Care ethics is concrete and practical. (2) They are different in the source of morality. (3) Confucianism has 2000 years history with heavy burdens, such as oppression of women and patriarchy. Care ethics is so modern and without historical burden. It fights against oppression of women and patriarchy. (4) Confucianism takes the principles of Jen(仁), Yi(義), Li(禮), Zhi(智), as the guiding principles. Noddings rejects principles. (5) Confucianism takes person as a moral agent while Noddings takes person as a relational self. According to this comparison, I think it may lead to a Confucian care ethics. |
