法律、尊嚴與消極自由：反思德沃金的倫理獨立性論證

Law, Dignity, and Negative Liberty: A Reflection on Ronald Dworkin's Ethical Independence Argument

莊世同(Shih-Tung CHUANG)

尊嚴 ； 自重 ； 本真 ； 倫理獨立性 ； 有限自決 ； 消極自由 ； 迫切傷害 ； 仇恨言論 ； Dignity ； Self-Respect ； Authenticity ； Ethical Independence ； Limited Self-Determination ； Negative Liberty ； Imminent Harm ； Hate Speech

哲學與文化

49卷2期（2022 / 02 / 01）

83 - 102

繁體中文

倫理獨立性是德沃金自重與本真尊嚴二原則共同展現的核心價值，其主要意涵是要求每個人要自我決定自己的倫理信念，並為之負起責任。德沃金強調，展現倫理獨立性的自決，必須受限於平等關懷所有人的倫理與道德責任，也就是負起以平等之人來對待自己和他人的責任，在這個意義下，德沃金整合倫理與道德的觀點，確實融貫一致。然而，在政治道德與法律強制的領域，由於他主張政府對消極自由的限制，尤其有關言論自由保障的問題，僅限於對他人生命、安全或自由的迫切傷害，導致他在反對法律限制仇恨言論的論點上，其消極自由理論明顯忽視仇恨言論本身抵觸平等對待原則，最終難以成功整合倫理、道德、政治與法律。

Ethical independence is the core value commonly expressed in Ronald Dworkin's two dignity principles of self-respect and authenticity. Its main implication requires that each person determine his own ethical convictions for himself and undertake the responsibility flowing from that self-determination. The self-determination that ethical independence performs, Dworkin emphasizes, must be constrained by the ethical and moral responsibilities of equal concern for all, i.e., the responsibilities of treating oneself and others as an equal. In this sense, Dworkin's integrated view of ethics and morality is coherent and consistent. Nevertheless, in the areas of political morality and legal coercion, he argues that government's constraints of negative liberty, in particular concerning the issue about the protection of free speech, are limited to the imminent harm to other's life, security, or liberty. As a result, Dworkin's arguments against the legal constraint of hate speech lead his theory of negative liberty to explicitly disregard that hate speech itself contradicts the principle of equal treatment, and finally cannot succeed in integrating ethics, morality, politics, and law.

1. 莊世同(2021)。論仇恨言論的概念：一個法哲學觀點的分析。刑事思潮之奔騰系列（二）：論法理、憲法與刑法之間學術研討會
   連結：
2. Baker, Edwin(2009).Autonomy and Hate Speech.Extreme Speech and Democracy,New York:
3. Berlin, Isaiah(1969).Four Essays on Liberty.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
4. Brison, Susan(1998).The Autonomy Defense of Free Speech.Ethics,108,312-339.
5. Darwall, Stephen(2013).Honor, History, and Relationship: Essays in Second-Personal Ethics II.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
6. Darwall, Stephen(1977).Two Kinds of Respect.Ethics,88,36-49.
7. Dworkin, Ronald(2011).Justice for Hedgehogs.Cambridge Mass.:Harvard University Press.
8. Dworkin, Ronald(1986).Law’s Empire.Cambridge Mass.:Harvard University Press.
9. Dworkin, Ronald(1996).Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of American Constitution.Cambridge Mass.:Harvard University Press.
10. Heyman, Steven J.(2009).Hate Speech, Public Discourse, and the First Amendment.Extreme Speech and Democracy,New York:
11. Post, Robert(2009).Hate Speech.Extreme Speech and Democracy,New York:
12. Rodriguez-Blanco, Veronica(2018).Dworkin’s Dignity under the Lens of the Magician of Konigsberg.Dignity in the Legal and Political Philosophy of Ronald Dworkin,New Delhi:
13. Rosen, Michael(2012).Dignity: Its History and Meaning.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
14. Scanlon, Thomas(1979).Freedom of Expression and Categories of Expression.University of Pittsburgh Law Review,40,519-550.
15. Scanlon, Thomas(1972).A Theory of Freedom of Expression.Philosophy and Public Affairs,1(2),204-226.
16. Sumner, L. W.(2009).Incitement and the Regulation of Hate Speech in Canada: A Philosophical Analysis.Extreme Speech and Democracy,New York:
17. Waldron, Jeremy(2012).The Harm in Hate Speech.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.