English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 20 |  Items with full text/Total items : 90058/119991 (75%)
Visitors : 24073621      Online Users : 2158
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 > 期刊論文 >  Item 140.119/57528
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/57528


    Title: 沒有拒絕」是否即是「同意」:藍騰與傑克森論「拒絕不可說」
    Other Titles: Not Refusing Sex vs. Consenting to It: Langton and Jacobson on the Unspeakability of Refusal
    Authors: 鄭光明
    Contributors: 政大哲學系
    Keywords: 拒絕不可說;抗議性侵不可說;藍騰;洪斯比;傑克森;the unspeakability of refusal;the unspeakability of protest;Rae Langton;Jennifer Hornsby;Daniel Jacobson
    Date: 2012-07
    Issue Date: 2013-03-28 15:19:49 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 反色情的女性主義者藍騰 (Rae Langton) 及洪斯比 (Jennifer Hornsby) 曾主張:色情刊物會使得婦女遭到噤聲或「在言失能」(illocutionary disablement)而無法拒絕他人,並因此使其性自主遭到侵犯。然而傑克森 (Daniel Jacobson)卻認為藍騰及洪斯比的論證會淪為歸謬論證,因此並無法成立。本文將主張藍騰及洪斯比會面臨下列兩難:她們認為我們有充分理由查禁色情刊物;然而如果她們想要得出「查禁色情刊物」此一結論,則她們就必須承認傑克森的批評言之成理,並承認自己的主張的確會淪為歸謬論證。這表示藍騰及洪斯比的主張在理論上是不一致的。
    Famous anti-pornography feminists, Rae Langton and Jennifer Hornsby claim that pornography perpetrates upon women as ”illocutionary disablement”: it renders women incapable of performing certain acts (such as refusing and protesting) by speaking. Daniel Jacobson argues that if Langton and Hornsby are right, then there was no refusal at all; the strange and troubling consequence of Langton and Hornsby's argument, according to Jacobson, is that they cannot call this rape. He concludes that there is an absurd consequence to the claim that women have been illocutionarily disabled in this way, which can be taken as a reductio of the argument: it makes rape impossible in this hypothetical scenario. In this paper, I will argue that if Langton and Hornsby want to derive some powerful reasons for not allowing the publication of pornography from the argument, then they will be forced to accept the absurd consequence that they cannot call this rape. This means that Langton and Hornsby's argument is not cogent at all. In short, censorship is won for their argument only at the cost of coherence.
    Relation: 東吳哲學學報, 28 1-38
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[哲學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    no.28Kuang-Ming Cheng.pdf583KbAdobe PDF419View/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