「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

10.29732/SJPS.201108.0003

鄭光明(Kuang-Ming Cheng)

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

東吳哲學學報

24期（2011 / 08 / 01）

47 - 97

繁體中文

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巨屬於男性，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 Lang ton 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, docs 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.

1. 鄭光明(2009)。不可說的在言噤聲：藍騰的反色情論證。歐美研究，39(1)，169-224。
   連結：
2. 鄭光明(2010)。什麼是言論自由：一個超薄理論。歐美研究，40(3)，715-777。
   連結：
3. 鄭光明(2008)。麥肯能與藍騰的平等論證。歐美研究，38(1)，103-160。
   連結：
4. Mill, J. S.(1859). On Liberty. New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press.
5. Austin, J. L.(1962).How to Do Things with Words.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
6. Hornsby, J(1995).Disempowered Speech.Philosophical Topics,23,127-147.
7. Hornsby, J,Langton, R.(1998).Free Speech and Illocution.Legal Theory,4,21-37.
8. Jacobson, D.(1995).Freedom of Speech Acts? A Response to Langton.Philosophy and Public Affairs,24(1),64-79.
9. LaFollette, H.(Ed.)(1996).Ethics in Practice: An Anthology.Oxford, UK:Blackwell.
10. Langton, R.(1993).Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts.Philosophy and Public Affairs,22(4),293-330.
11. Langton, R.,West, C.(1999).Scorekeeping in a Pornographic Language Game.Australasian Journal of Philosophy,77,303-319.
12. Mackinnon, C.(1993).Only Words.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
13. Mackinnon, C.(1987).Feminism Unmodified.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
14. Post, R. C.(Ed.)(1998).Censorship and Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation.Los Angeles:The Getty Research Institute.
15. Scanlon, T. M.(1972).The Difficulty of Tolerance: Essays in Political Philosophy.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
16. Tsohatzidis, S. L.(Ed.)(1994).Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives.New York:Routldge.
17. West, C.(2003).The Free Speech Argument Against Pornography.Canadian Journal of Philosophy,33(3),391-422.