婦女遭到臣屬誰之過：維塔論色情刊物之責任

Who Should Be Responsible for the Subordination of Women? Vadas's Feinbergian Analysis of Pornography

10.29732/SJPS.201208.0001

鄭光明(Kuang-Ming Cheng)

范伯格的責任理論 ； 傷害三條件 ； 維塔 ； 性常規優先性 ； 臣屬不可抹滅 ； Joel Feinberg's theory of responsibility ； the triconditional analysis of harm ； Melinda Vadas ； the priority of the practice of sexuality ； the indelibility of subordination

東吳哲學學報

26期（2012 / 08 / 01）

1 - 40

繁體中文

反色情的分析哲學家維塔（Melinda Vadas）曾主張「臣屬不可抹滅」（the indelibility of subordination）如下：在現有常規中製造、散播以「描繪婦女遭到臣屬」為內容的色情刊物會使得婦女遭到臣屬，這是無法抹滅的事實。維塔更援引當代法哲學家范伯格（Joel Feinberg）的責任理論，來證明製造、散播色情刊物必須為婦女遭到臣屬負責，從而主張有充分理由查禁色情刊物。本文將檢驗上開主張是否能夠成立。本文將指出：如果維塔要由范伯格的責任理論導出「限制色情刊物」此一結論，她就必須假定「性常規優先性」；然則我們可以利用兩個歸謬論證證明「性常規優先性」無法成立，可見維塔的主張並不能成立。

Feminist writer Melinda Vadas attempts an original defense of the view that pornography is itself the subordination based on sex which differentially harms women. In order to argue that women's being treated as a subordinated class is directly and relevantly related to producing or disseminating pornography, she draws the distinction between that which may and may not be imputed to the agents of faulty actions from Joel Feinberg's theory of responsibility. In this paper, I will argue that Vadas may not recognize that the causal relevance for pornography and women's being treated as a subordinated class exists only in our practice of sexuality; in order to go beyond this, she has to utilize the principle of the priority of the practice of sexuality. But we have yet to be given any reason for supposing that the principle of the priority of the practice of sexuality is tenable. Consequently we have as yet no reason to accept Vadas's account of the wrongness of producing or disseminating pornography.

1. Dretske, F.(1989).Reasons and Causes.Philosophical Perspectives,3,1-15.
2. Feinberg, J.(1970).Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
3. Feinberg, J.(1985).Offense to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
4. Feinberg, J.(1980).Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
5. Green, L.(1998).Pornographizing, Subordinating, and Silencing.Censorship and Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation,Los Angeles:
6. Langton, R.(1998).Subordination, Silence, and Pornography's Authority.Censorship and Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation,Los Angeles:
7. Langton, R.(1993).Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts.Philosophy and Public Affairs,22(4),293-330.
8. MacKinnon, C.(1984).Francis Biddle's Sister: Pornography, Civil Rights and Speech.Feminism Unmodified,Cambridge, MA:
9. MacKinnon, C.(1983).Not A Moral Issue.Feminism Unmodified,Cambridge, MA:
10. Parent, W. A.(1990).A Second Look at Pornography and the Subordination of Women.Journal of Philosophy,87,205-211.
11. Vadas, M.(1987).A First Look at the Pornography/Civil Rights Ordinance: Could Pornography Be the Subordination of Women?.Journal of Philosophy,84,487-511.