查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 負責任的自我--理察.尼布爾的基督教倫理學評析
- Broadening the Concepts of Moore's Transactional Distance Theory in the Light of Relevant Adult Education Theories and the New Telecommunications Technologies
- 朱光潛多重自我的對話與轉化:一種敘說建構取向
- 創造一個人為秩序:史詩、悲劇、對話錄與希臘早期政治論述的興起
- 人的自我實現與多元文化教育的法建構
- 重組與對話:晚明小品文之自我書寫
- 自我教導訓練團體對國小六年級學童社會焦慮輔導效果之研究
- 邁向開放的社會--對話教學法的實踐
- 論功利主義
- Self and Other: Rethinking Women's Voice in the Context of Bakhtin's Heteroglossia and Dialogism
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 負責任的自我--理察.尼布爾的基督教倫理學評析=The Responsible Self: A Critical Comment on the Christian Ethics of Richard Niebuhr |
---|---|
作者 | 莊雅棠; Chuang, Ya Tang; |
期刊 | 成大宗教與文化學報 |
出版日期 | 20011200 |
卷期 | 1 2001.12[民90.12] |
頁次 | 頁215-250 |
分類號 | 242.2 |
語文 | chi |
關鍵詞 | 理察尼布爾; 責任論倫理學; 責任; 自我; 徹底的一神論; 多元文化; 對話; Richard Niebuhr; Self; Responsibility ethics; Radical monotheism; Multi-cultural and multi-religious; |
中文摘要 | 本文主要重點是評述理察.尼布爾的「責任論倫理學」。尼氏以「責任」一辭作為倫理學的關鍵字,從哲學和神學的角度皆析「行為中的自我」,提共人類生存活動最基本的「回應性」,指出一個人倫理行為的核心在於成為一個「負責任的自我」。作者認為尼氏的「責任論倫理學」有兩個值得欣賞的優點:(1)由於它是從自我的關係性(自我與自然、自我與他人、自我與社會、自我與上帝)出發來論述倫理的責任,一方面可以對治「目的論倫理學」和「義務論倫理學」的偏頗,再方面將兩者包容於更大的詮釋脈絡,為倫理學思想體系提供一個新而寬廣的向度。(2)責任論倫理學為倫理學的感性向度保留了相當大的空間,感覺、身體知覺、沉默認知都是道德行為不可或缺的一環。 由於尼布爾是一位基督教的倫理學家,因而把「責任論倫理學」與徹底的一神論關聯起來。這導致一個嚴重的難題;在多元宗教、多元文化、多元宗教的後現代社會中,徹底的一神論所界定的責任論倫理學如何說服其他宗教徒?我們得接受徹底的一神論,才能成為「負責任的自我」嗎?這些問題是尼氏倫理學必須進一步去處理。作皷認為,如果我們能在多元宗教的文化脈絡下,經由尼布爾所重視的「對話」模式,審慎地回應徹底一神論的挑戰,並預期諸如佛教;儒教、道教對徹底一神論的回應,必定能為「負責任的自我」提出一更新穎的詮釋。 |
英文摘要 | This essay aims at a critical comment on the Christian Ethics of Richard Niebuhr. Using “responsibility” as a key word, Niebuhr analyzed “self-in-action” philosophically and theologically. He highlights that “responsiveness” is the fundamental action in human existence, and points out that the core of the ethical action is to be a “responsible self.” The author tries to argue that there are at least two advantages of Niebuhr’s responsibility ethics: (1) Since it focus on the relations of self (self-others, self-society, self-nature, self-God) to build the responsibility of one’s ethical action, this ethics put both “motive” and “end” into consideration, and thus avoid the biased extremes of deontological ethics and teleological ethics. Its, however, is not the abandon these tow kinds of ethics, but includes them in a broader interpretative context. (2) Riebuhr’s responsibility ethics starts form the “responsiveness” of human action, including both somatic and spiritual reaction, thus why it preserve more space for the role of “aesthetical dimension” in ethical action. Feeling, bodily perception and tacit cognition play important role in our ethical action. As a Christian theologian, Niebuhr tries his best to combine his responsibility ethics with radical monotheism. However, his position of radical monotheism causes serious problem: How can a responsibility ethics defined by radical monotheism convince people of other faith in a multi-cultural and multi-religious world today? In order to become a “responsible self” should one accept radical monotheism first? This is a difficult question left unsolved by Niebuhr. However, if we could follow the dialogue“ model which Niebuhr emphasizes, consider the ethical challenge comes form racial monotheism, and expect the possible responses comes from other religions, then it would be able to give a new interpretation of the “responsible self” in the multi-religious world. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。