Retention or Abolition of the Death Penalty: An Enquiry into the Fundamental Philosophy of Human Rights

死刑存廢：基本人權哲學探討

10.7065/MRPC.200405.0103

雷敦龢(Edmund Ryden SJ)

死刑 ； 基本人權哲學 ； 全體性 ； 革命科學 ； Death Penalty ； Fundamental Philosophy of Human Rights ； Comprehensiveness ； Revolutionary Science

哲學與文化

31卷5期（2004 / 05 / 01）

103 - 132

英文

本文由基本人權哲學探討對死刑存廢的態度，認為某些哲學無法適當地表達人權思想。而且在衡量那些適當的哲學時，其全體關懷是主要表準。本文認為基本哲學的作用相當於科學典範的概念，如同典範超越常規科學的研究，所以基本人權哲學提供更高的角度來觀察人權議題。因此推動廢除死刑者不僅要以理性證明其有理，更要引起人心轉變使反對者以新的眼光看到人的意義。

This paper explores the value of studying attitudes to the death penalty from the point of view of a fundamental philosophy of human rights. It argues that certain philosophies are inadequate for expressing the notion of human rights as such and, in the case of adequate philosophies, that the more comprehensive the theory is the better. The paper concludes that the role of a fundamental philosophy is to shape the whole discourse in which the discussion takes place, in much the same way that the basic paradigms of scientific theory lie over and above the practices of normal science. Hence in persuading others to adopt an abolitionist perspective, it is necessary to encourage a change of heart that sees the person in a new light.

1. Angle, Stephen C. (eds.),Svensson, Marina(eds.)(2001).The Chinese Human Rights Reader: Documents and Commentary.Armonk, N. Y.:M. E. Sharpe.
2. Buergenthal, Thomas(1995).International Human Rights.Eagen, MN:West.
3. Donnelly, Jack,Lyons, G. M. (eds.),Matstanduno, M.(eds.)(1995).Beyond Westphalia?.Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press.
4. Dufrenne, Mikel(1967).Phénoménologie de l'expérience esthétique.Paris:P.U.F..
5. Eriksson, Maja Kirilova(2000).Reproductive Freedom: In the Context of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law.The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff.
6. Gomez, Fausto,Ryden, Edmund(ed.)(2002).Taiwan Opposes the Death Penalty.Hsinchuang:Fujen.
7. Humphrey, John P.(1983).Memoirs of John P. Humphrey: The First Director of the United Nations Division of Human Rights.Human Rights Quarterly,5.4,387-439.
8. Jhering、 Rudolf von, Issac, tr.(1913).Law as a Means to an End.Boston:Boston Book Co..
9. Jhering、 Rudolf von, Issac, tr.(1999).Law as a Means to an End.Union, N.J.:The Lawbook Exchange.
10. Jhering、 Rudolf von, John J., tr(1997).The Struggle for Law.Union, N.J.:The Lawbook Exchange.
11. Jhering、 Rudolf von, John J., tr(1915).The Struggle for Law.Chicago:Callaghan and Co..
12. John Paul II(2003).Legislate and live perennial values: On the seventh centenary of La Sapienza University in Rome.L'Osservatore Romano,1795,3-4.
13. Kuhn, Thomas S.(1962).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
14. Mill, John Stuart(1989).On Liberty.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
15. Nino, Carlos Santiago(1991).The Ethics of Human Rights.Oxford:Clarendon.
16. Radelet, Michael L.,Ryden, Edmund(ed.)(2002).Taiwan Opposes the Death Penalty.Hsinchuang:Fujen.
17. Ryden, Edmund(ed.)(2002).Taiwan Opposes the Death Penalty.Hsinchuang:Fujen.
18. Sakya Chao-fei,Ryden, Edmund(ed.)(2002).Taiwan Opposes the Death Penalty.Hsinchuang:Fujen.
19. Shia, Ben Chang,Ryden, Edmund(ed.)(2002).Taiwan Opposes the Death Penalty.Hsinchuang:Fujen.

1. Edmund Ryden SJ(2010).Is "Rights as Response" an Adequate Account of the Origin of Rights? A Reply to Jack Donnelly.東吳政治學報,28(2),1-47.
2. Ryden, Edmund S. J.(2012).Human Rights, Theology, and Natural Law.哲學與文化,39(9),15-49.
3. (2006).Is consensus a sufficient foundation for human rights?.輔仁法學,31,189-218.