English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 20 |  Items with full text/Total items : 90029/119959 (75%)
Visitors : 24040124      Online Users : 132
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 140.119/53527
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/53527


    Title: 「一次決定論」或「全有全無論」?藍騰與格林論臣屬與噤聲,
    Once-and-for-all-ism Or All-or-none-ism? Langton and Green on Subordination and Silencing
    Authors: 鄭光明
    Cheng, Kuang-Ming
    Contributors: 政大哲學系
    Keywords: 言論自由;言論檢查;藍騰;格林;一次決定論;全有全無論
    Freedom of speech;Censorship;Rae Langton;Leslie Green;Once-and-for-all-ism;All-or-none-ism
    Date: 2011-08
    Issue Date: 2012-09-04 10:57:49 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 言論檢查 (censorship) 背後的充分理由究竟為何?本文將以色情刊物為例探討此一問題。對此,女性主義者藍騰 (Rae Langton) 曾主張:只要色情刊物在此時此地(here and now)使得婦女遭到了噤聲或使得婦女臣屬於男性,這就足以使我們有充分理由查禁色情刊物了。本文將稱此一主張為「一次決定論」(once-and-for-all-ism)。然而格林 (Leslie Green) 卻不同意藍騰的主張,並認為:色情刊物無法隨時隨地使得婦女遭到噤聲或使得婦女臣屬於男性,因此我們並沒有充分理由查禁色情刊物。本文稱此一主張為「全有全無論」(all-or-none-ism)。本文將反對藍騰的「一次決定論」,並認為格林的「全有全無論」較為合理。本文將主張:藍騰的「一次決定論」由於無法避免「侵害思想自由」問題,因此並不能為言論檢查提供充分理由。 An anti-pornography feminist, Rae Langton argues that pornography may subordinate and silence women. Langton thinks that the fact that women are not subordinated or silenced by pornography, everywhere and every time, does not undermine the apparent fact that they are subordinated and silenced, here and now. To demand otherwise comes close to demanding that no women are subordinated and silenced by pornography unless all women are subordinated and silenced by pornography. Let’s call it Langton’s once-and-for-all-ism. On the other hand, Leslie Green argues that the mere fact that women might be subordinated-in-pornography or silenced-in-pornography will not suffice to bring them within the jurisdiction of pornography. Therefore, Green thinks that Langton does not show that women are subordinated or silenced by pornography. Let’s call it Green’s all-or-none-ism. In what follows I will argue that Green is right in thinking that we should not restrict pornography merely on the ground that pornography does subordinate or silence some women, here and now. Therefore, there are some powerful liberal reasons for thinking that Langton’s once-and-for-all-ism is not a good argument for censoring pornography.
    Relation: 東吳哲學學報, 24, 47-97
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[哲學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    no.24Kuang-Ming%20Cheng.pdf693KbAdobe PDF1372View/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