English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91280/121421 (75%)
Visitors : 25434926      Online Users : 110
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
    政大機構典藏 > 文學院 > 哲學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/128849
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/128849


    Title: 泰勒與恩斯特補貼育兒與否之爭-兒童作為人類與父母作為養育者自由主義公平之爭哲學探究
    Should Parents Be Licensed? Liberalism or Libertarianism: Public or Private Parenting?
    Authors: 吳叡涵
    Wu, Rui-Han
    Contributors: 鄭光明
    Cheng, Kuang-Ming
    吳叡涵
    Wu, Rui-Han
    Keywords: 父母證照
    拉弗萊特
    勒米爾
    衛生國家
    Parent Licensing
    Hugh LaFollette
    Pierre Lemieux
    Sanitary State
    Date: 2020
    Issue Date: 2020-03-02 11:11:14 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 對於「政府限制人民自由之合理界限」此一問題,自由至上主義者如勒米爾(Pierre Lemieux) 與弗列斯(Lawerence Frisch)堅決反對任何以「國家公共利益為名,行侵害人民自由之實」,無所不管的衛生國家(Sanitary State) 行為。然而當代自由主義對於「政府限制人民自由的合理界限」此一問題抱持不同看法。本文探討自由至上主義 (libertarianism,或放任自由主義) 與一般自由主義 (Liberalism) 將如何回應政府介入人民私領域生活(以人類親代養育人類子代之自由為例)界限問題,以及當代自由主義衍生出的五種人類親代生養人類子代模式何者較言之成理。

    在本文中筆者將探討人類親代生養人類子代證照,以及由當代自由主義所衍生的五種人類親代生養人類子代證照模式之中,何者較言之成理。在證照制度之哲學爭論中,「人類親代生養人類子代證照」為國家與人民自由界限值得探討例子之一。筆者將探究「五種父母證照模式」哲學爭論,以便探討「國家限制人民自由之合理界限」此一問題。
    Reference: 參考文獻
    Engster, Daniel. (2010). The Place of Parenting within a Liberal Theory of Justice: The Private Parent ing Model, Parental Licenses, or Public Parental Support? Social Theory and Practice, 36, 2: 233–62.

    Frisch, Lawrence E. (1982). On Licentious Licensing: A Reply to Hugh LaFollette. Philosophy and Pu blic Affairs, 11, 2: 173-80.

    George, Lakey. (2017) Viking Economics: How the Scandinavians got it right- and how we can, too. Melville House.

    LaFollette, Hugh. (1980). Licensing Parents. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 9, 2: 183–97.

    LaFollette, Hugh. (1982). A Reply to Frisch. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 11, 2: 181-183.

    LaFollette, Hugh. (2010). Licensing Parents Revisited. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 27, 4: 327–343.

    Lemieux, Pierre. (2001). Parent Licensing. Laissez-faire City Times, 5, 19.

    Mill, John Stuart. (1978). On Liberty, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

    Robertson, John A. (2004). Procreative Liberty. In Peg Tittle (ed.), Should Parents Be Licensed? Debat ing the Issues (pp. 211-223). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Taylor, Robert, S. (2010). Children as Projects and Persons: A Liberal Antinomy. Social Theory and Pr actice, 35, 555-576.

    Westman, Jack C. (2004a). A National Parenting Policy. In Peg Tittle (ed.), Should Parents Be License d? Debating the Issues (pp. 64-82). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Westman, Jack C. (2004b). Arguments against Licensing Parent. In Peg Tittle (ed.), Should Parents Be Licensed? Debating the Issues (pp. 310-356). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    哲學系
    107154003
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1071540031
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202000169
    Appears in Collections:[哲學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    003101.pdf1905KbAdobe PDF0View/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