English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 86525/115230 (75%)
Visitors : 23161477      Online Users : 244
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/121263


    Title: 霍布斯論自然法與政治義務
    Thomas Hobbes: The Laws of Nature and Political Obligation
    Authors: 周家瑜
    Chou, Chia-yu
    Contributors: 政治系
    Keywords: Thomas Hobbes;Political Obligation;de facto Political Power;Consent;The Laws of Nature
    霍布斯;政治義務;事實政治權力;同意;自然法
    Date: 2014-09
    Issue Date: 2018-12-07 17:11:50 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: In this essay I examine the role and function of Hobbes’s account of the laws of nature in his political theory by reconsidering the basis of his concept of political obligation. This essay takes issue with common readings of Hobbes which either considers Hobbesian laws of nature is nothing but counsels from reason(which provides no obligations) or mere hypothetical imperatives(which at best justify prudential obligations). To argue against the common readings, this essay argues that Hobbesian laws of nature is essential to understanding Hobbes’s concept of political obligation because they provide some kind of natural duty by which an effective “reasonable consent” can be defined. In addition, to argue against the view of de facto theory, I argue that both “Consent” and “Safety” are the necessary conditions of Hobbesian conception of political obligation.
    本文處理的是霍布斯式自然法在其政治理論中的角色與作用,霍布斯自然法向來是其政治理論中較被忽略之處,因通常認為霍布斯為證成其絕對主權而弱化傳統自然法權威,但弔詭的是霍布斯式自然法卻又似乎具相當的規範效力,而因為兩種進路均有相當文本證據支持所以形成某種「詮釋的兩難」。為探討自然法在霍布斯政治理論中的角色與功能,本文將從霍布斯政治義務觀切入,探討自然法與其政治義務之關聯。本文主要論證兩點:首先,本文對當代主流事實權威論對於霍布斯之政治義務的詮釋提出質疑,此一主流論點認為霍布斯式自然法並無重要性,本文將論證若認真考量霍布斯的自然法論述,將對其政治義務觀有更完整的理解;具體而言,藉由探討自然法的角色,本文論證霍布斯的政治義務並非僅僅建立在「事實的強力」或「同意」之上,而必須考慮到自然法所給出的限制,因此可以說政治義務建立在「理性的同意」上。
    Relation: 政治與社會哲學評論, No.50, pp.59-100
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: http://dx.doi.org/10.6523/168451532014090050002
    DOI: 10.3966/168451532014090050002
    Appears in Collections:[政治學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    59-100.pdf1822KbAdobe PDF39View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback