自由民主體制下的生命教育政策之制定

The Making of Life Education Policy in a Liberal Democracy

10.6424/JLE.201006.0135

謝鎮群(Jenn-Chyun Shieh)

自由民主體制 ； 政治的自由主義 ； 中立原則 ； 兩難困境 ； life education ； liberal democracy ； principle of neutrality ； method of avoidance ； engaged mutual understanding of difference

生命教育研究

2卷1期（2010 / 06 / 01）

135 - 160

繁體中文

教育部近年大力推動生命教育，其內容包括人生終極價值及意義等課題並援引宗教資源。宗教信仰雖可豐富生命教育，卻極可能使生命教育陷入一兩難困境。生命教育的內容及政策若偏頗於某一特定的宗教、信仰、價值體系則有違中立原則，若與之截然分割則不易提供關於人生終極價值及意義等課題的具體內容，而顯空泛。中立原則迄今也面對嚴峻考驗，譬如施政上的價值中立，是否會助長價值的盲目？近來對於中立原則的解釋逐漸轉向共同價值的發現，然而在一多元民主社會中共同價值與共同基礎當如何確定？不同的宗教、信仰、價值體系間如何可能發展出關於生命教育的共同基礎或具體主張？本研究透過對中立原則的重新確立，使生命教育免於陷入兩難困境，自由民主體制的核心理念得以實現，自由民主體制下生命教育政策制定的理論基礎也得以確立。

In recent years the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan vigorously promotes ”life education” as a major initiative. The proposed topics of life education include the ultimate value and meaning of human life and draw resources from religious contents. Even though content s on religious faiths may enrich life education, it is probable that the former can create a complex dilemma for the latter. If the contents and policy of life education are biased toward a certain religion, faith, or value system, the principle of neutrality and the commitment of a liberal democracy to fairness would be violated. However, if life education is detached from all religions, faiths, and value systems, it may become vague and devoid of content. The principle of neutrality has also been facing severe challenges to address such issues as whether value neutrality would foster value blindness. Recent interpretation of the principle of neutrality gradually turned toward the identification of common values. Nonetheless, an issue is how to determine the common values and foundation in a pluralistic, democratic society. Another issue is how a common foundation or concrete assertions can be developed among different religions, faiths, and value systems. This research focuses on the issue of neutrality and constructs a new approach to addressing diversity. Following this new approach a public policy, such as life education policy, can be made without turning into the dilemma aforementioned. The presumptions of a liberal democracy can also be maintained and realized. A theoretical foundation of life education policy making within a liberal democracy is also provided.

1. Ackerman, B.(1989).Why dialogue?.The Journal of Philosophy,86,5-22.
2. Bird, C.(1996).Mutual respect and neutral justification.Ethics,107(1),62-96.
3. Bohman, J.(1999).Citizenship and norms of publicity: Wide public reason in cosmopolitan societies.Political Theory,27(2),176-202.
4. Brighouse, H.(1996).Is there a neutral justification for liberalism?.Pacific Philosophical Quarterly,77,193-215.
5. Dworkin, R.(2008).Is democracy possible here? Principles for a new political debate.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
6. Galston, W. A.(1991).Liberal purpose.New York:Cambridge University Press.
7. Galston, W. A.(2005).Public matters: Politics, policy, and religion in the 21st century.Maryland, ML:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
8. Gray, J.(2000).Pluralism and toleration in contemporary political philosophy.Political Studies,48(2),323-333.
9. Greenawalt, K.(2004).Does God belong in public school?.New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
10. Grundmann, R.,Mantziaris, C.(1991).Fundamentalist, intolerance, or civil disobedience? Strange loops in liberal theory.Political Theory,19(4),572-605.
11. Habermas, J.(1998).The inclusion of the other.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
12. Hampshire, S.(Ed.)(1978).Public and private morality.New York:Cambridge University Press.
13. Larmore, C.(1987).Patterns of moral complexity.New York:Cambridge University Press.
14. Larmore, C.(1990).Political liberalism.Political Theory,18(3),339-360.
15. Larmore, C.(1996).The morals of modernity.New York:Cambridge University Press.
16. McCabe, D.(2000).Knowing about the good: A problem with antiperfectionism.Ethics,110(2),311-338.
17. Rawls, J.(1996).Political liberalism. (2nd ed.).New York:Harvard University Press.
18. Rawls, J.(1971).A theory of justice.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
19. Raz, J.(1986).The morality of freedom.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
20. Sandel, M.(2005).Public philosophy.MA:Harvard University Press.
21. Schmitt, C.,Kennedy, E.(trans.)(1988).The crisis of parliamentary democracy.MA:The MIT Press.
22. Schmitt, C.,Schwab, G.(Trans.)(1988).Political theology: Four chapters on the concept of sovereignty.Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
23. Schmitt, C.,Schwab, G.(Trans.)(1976).The concept of the political.New Jersey:Rutgers University Press.
24. Spitz, D.(Ed.)(1975).On liberty.New York:W. W. Norton & Company Inc..
25. Walzer, M.(1983).Sphere of justice.New York:Basic Books.
26. Weithman, P.(2004).Religion and the obligations of citizenship.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

1. 謝君直(2012)。生命教育之儒學闡釋─孔孟仁義思想的現代意義。嘉義大學通識學報，9，45-71。