English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 118575/149625 (79%)
Visitors : 79307930      Online Users : 263
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 140.119/159352
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/159352


    Title: 扭曲欲望是自主的嗎?實質性自主理論的建構
    Are Deformed Desires Autonomous? A Reconstruction of a Substantive Theory of Autonomy
    Authors: 劉晉呈
    Liu, Chin-Cheng
    Contributors: 王華
    Wang, Hua
    劉晉呈
    Liu, Chin-Cheng
    Keywords: 扭曲欲望
    適應性偏好
    壓迫
    自主
    基本繁榮
    Deformed Desire
    Adaptive Preference
    Oppression
    Autonomy
    Basic Flourishing
    Date: 2025
    Issue Date: 2025-09-01 16:41:29 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 我們一般會認為人們的欲望是自發的,是不由自主地發生在人們身上的。但是,Harry Frankfurt卻提出了欲望的自主理論:當人們的反思能力透過形成二階意志來認同一階欲望的時候,該欲望就是「屬於自己」的,因此也是自主的。此一理論掀起了關於自主條件的論爭,主要牽涉到某類在社會壓迫下形成的欲望是否自主的問題。這類欲望不僅在不理想的社會條件中產生,還會損害行動者的利益,學界將這類欲望稱為「扭曲欲望」或「適應性偏好」。許多學者認為扭曲欲望是不自主的,因為扭曲欲望是壓迫性社會「強加」給行動者的,很難說它是「屬於自己」的。本文將挑戰此一觀點,試圖以Paul Benson的強規範性能力理論為基礎,並導入Serene Khader對扭曲欲望範圍的釐清,重構為一種新的實質性自主理論,主張扭曲欲望在某些條件下可以是自主的。
    首先,本文將說明,Frankfurt的自主理論可能將多數的扭曲欲望視為自主,若想將扭曲欲望判斷為不自主,將缺乏可靠的依據。為了解決Frankfurt的理論缺點,本文分析了兩派自主理論:「程序性」理論主張,存在特定的反思程序能夠辨識出扭曲欲望。例如,John Christman認為,行動者能夠透過反思欲望的形成過程,進而發現社會壓迫對欲望的不合理影響,將該欲望判斷為不自主。
    然而,其它學者卻認為,人們的反思程序會合理化社會壓迫的影響,無法達到「程序性」理論所聲稱辨識扭曲欲望的效果。為解決此一問題,「實質性」理論主張在判斷欲望是否自主時,必須參考實質性規範。例如Benson主張,欲望自主要求行動者擁有規範性能力,能夠判斷(扭曲)欲望是否符合正當規範。Benson認為,壓迫性規範的內化並不總是破壞規範性能力,當人們擁有規範性能力時,就可以辨識出扭曲欲望。而當壓迫性規範的內化破壞規範性能力時,行動者則不具備足夠的規範性能力,無法將(扭曲)欲望判斷為不恰當,因此(扭曲)欲望是不自主的。值得注意的是,相較於「實質性」理論,「程序性」理論過於低估了壓迫性規範的內化對反思能力的破壞(後者甚至強調反思能力能夠發現社會壓迫的影響),因此後者在壓迫情境下是不適用的。
    第二,本文將指出,若我們主張「扭曲欲望必然是不自主的」,則會產生進一步的理論缺點。要支持此一主張,必須採取直接限制欲望內容的實質性理論。例如Natalie Stoljar主張,欲望自主要求其內容不能夠與壓迫性規範一致。但這類理論引起了學者的批評:一方面,Benson認為受壓迫者的能動性將受到阻礙,若受壓迫者被社會視為不自主,將難以行使犯錯、反思與反抗的能力。另一方面,Khader批評,由於社會只承認一組特定的道德價值,政府可能藉「增加自主」的名義來干預受壓迫者的欲望內容,導致道德多樣性的損害。
    第三,本文將說明,Benson的強規範性能力理論,由於允許存在自主的扭曲欲望,因此能夠避免上述缺點。Benson主張,只要行動者擁有規範性能力,能夠判斷(扭曲)欲望不符合正當規範,則該(扭曲)欲望即為自主的欲望,並不會要求行動者的欲望內容必須符合正當的規範。
    第四,雖然如此,本文仍指出Benson理論的缺點:該理論無法準確地辨識扭曲欲望,只能透過辨識出不符合正當規範的欲望,將扭曲欲望一併揪出。筆者認為,Benson的理論之所以會有此一問題,其根本原因在於它並未明確定義扭曲欲望,並參考該定義作為辨識扭曲欲望的依據。
    最後,為了解決Benson理論的問題,本文試圖援引Khader納入「基本繁榮」 (basic flourishing) 的考量而對扭曲欲望的範圍做出的釐清,將Benson的理論重構為一種基本繁榮版本的實質性理論。本文提出了一種能夠根據基本繁榮概念來辨識並懷疑扭曲欲望的規範性能力,並將其作為欲望自主的充分必要條件,藉以回應「扭曲欲望是否自主?」的問題。
    Reference: 外文書籍
    Babbitt, Susan. E. (1993). “Feminism and Objective Interests: The Role of Transformation Experiences in Rational Deliberation,” in L. Alcoff and E. Potter (eds.), Feminist Epistemologies. (pp. 245–264). New York: Routledge.
    Benson, Paul (2005a). “Feminist Intuitions and the Normative Substance of Autonomy.” in J. Taylor (ed.), Personal Autonomy: New Essays on Personal Autonomy and its Role in Contemporary Moral Philosophy. (pp. 124–142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Benson, Paul (2005b). Taking Ownership: Authority and Voice in Autonomous Agency. In: Christman J, Anderson J, eds. Autonomy and the Challenges to Liberalism: New Essays. (pp. 101–126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Cudd, Ann E. (2006). Analyzing Oppression. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Cudd, Ann E. (2014). “Adaptations to Oppression: Preference and Resistance” in Oshana, M.A.L. (ed.). Personal Autonomy and Social Oppression: Philosophical Perspectives. (pp. 142–160). Routledge.
    Clatterbaugh, Kenneth (1996). ‘‘Are Men Oppressed?’’ in Larry May, Robert Strikwerda, and Patrick D. Hopkins (ed.). Rethinking Masculinity. Rowman and Littlefield.
    Dworkin, Gerald (1981). “The Concept of Autonomy,” in Rudolph Haller, ed., Science and Ethics. (pp. 203–213). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    Elster, Jon (2016). Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Frankfurt, Harry. G. (1988). The Importance of What We Care About: Philosophical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Friedman, Marilyn (2003). Autonomy, Gender, Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Geuss, Raymond (1981). The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Hill, Tomas (1991). Autonomy and Self-Respect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Khader, Serene J. (2011). Adaptive Preferences and Women’s Empowerment. New York: Oxford University Press
    Mackenzie, Catriona & Stoljar, Natalie (2000). “Introduction: Autonomy Refigured: Five Feminist Critiques of Autonomy” in Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self. (pp. 35–51). Oxford University Press.
    Meyers, Diana T. (1989). Self, Society, and Personal Choice. Columbia Universal Press.
    Meyers, Diana T. (2000a). “Intersectional Identity and the Authentic Self: Opposites Attract!” in Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self. (pp. 151–180). New York: Oxford University Press.
    Nussbaum, Martha. C. (1999). Sex and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Nussbaum, Martha. C. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Harvard University Press.
    Raz, Joseph (1986). The Morality of Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Stoljar, Natalie (2000). “Autonomy and the Feminist Intuition.” in Relational Autonomy, Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency & The Social Self. (pp. 94–111). Oxford University Press.
    Stoljar, Natalie (2014). “Autonomy and Adaptive Preference Formation” in Andrea Veltman, and Mark Piper (eds), Autonomy, Oppression, and Gender, Studies in Feminist Philosophy. (pp. 227–252). New York: Oxford University Press.
    Wolf, Susan (1988). “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility”. in F. Schoeman (ed.), Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions: New Essays in Moral Psychology (pp. 46–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    外文期刊論文
    Benson, Paul (1987). Freedom and Value. The Journal of Philosophy, 84(9), 465–486.
    Benson, Paul (1991). Autonomy and Oppressive Socialization. Social Theory and Practice, 17(3), 385–408.
    Benson, Paul (1994). Free Agency and Self-Worth. The Journal of Philosophy, 91(12), 650–668.
    Bruckner, Donald W. (2009). In Defense of Adaptive Preferences. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 142(3), 307–324.
    Christman, John (1987). Autonomy: A Defense of the Split-level Self. Southern Journal of Philosophy 25, 281–93.
    Christman, John (1991a). Autonomy and Personal History. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 21(1), 1–24.
    Christman, John (1991b). Liberalism and Individual Positive Freedom. Ethics, 101(2), 343–359.
    Dworkin, Gerald (1976). Autonomy and Behavior Control. The Hastings Center Report, 6(1), 23–28.
    Frankfurt, Harry. G. (1971). Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person. The Journal of Philosophy, 68 (1), 5–20.
    Friedman, Marilyn (1986). Autonomy and the Split-Level Self. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 24, 19–35.
    Superson, Anita (2005). Deformed Desires and Informed Desire Tests. Hypatia, 20(4), 109–126.
    Westlund, Andrea (2003). Selflessness and Responsibility for Self: Is Deference Compatible with Autonomy? The Philosophical Review, 112(4), 483–523.

    外文網路資源
    Stoljar, Natalie (2022). &quot;Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy&quot; in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 Edition). Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.). URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/feminism-autonomy/>。查閱日期:2023年3月31日。
    Superson, Anita (2023). &quot;Feminist Moral Psychology&quot; in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition). Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.). URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/feminism-moralpsych/>。查閱日期:2024年10月6日。
    Zwolinski, Matt, Benjamin Ferguson, and Alan Wertheimer, &quot;Exploitation&quot;, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/exploitation/>。查閱日期:2024年10月21日。

    中文書籍
    Berger, John(2023),《觀看的方式》。吳莉群譯。三版。台北市:麥田出版。
    Berlin, Isaiah(1986),〈兩種自由概念〉,載於《自由四論》。陳曉林譯。225–296。台北市:聯經。
    Johnson, Allan G.(2008),《性別打結:拆除父權違建》。成令方等譯。台北市:群學。
    Lukes, Steven(2021),《權力:基進觀點》。林葦芸、陳雅馨譯。三版。台北市:商周。
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    哲學系
    109154004
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109154004
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[哲學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    400401.pdf3547KbAdobe PDF1View/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 Copyright Announcement
    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。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    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。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback