優納斯責任倫理學的環境教育涵義探究

Inquiry into the Implications of Hans Jonas' Ethics of Responsibility about Environmental Education

10.7038/JETP.200906.0036

梁福鎮；鄒慧美

責任倫理學 ； 優納斯 ； 環境教育 ； ethics of responsibility ； environmental education ； Hans Jonas

教育理論與實踐學刊

19期（2009 / 06 / 01）

35 - 61

繁體中文

本文採用教育詮釋學方法，對優納斯的責任倫理學進行探討，主要的目的有下列幾項：1.探討優納斯責任倫理學的思想淵源；2.分析優納斯責任倫理學的主要內涵；3.評價優納斯責任倫理學的優劣得失；4.闡明優納斯責任倫理學對環境教育的重要啟示。優納斯被認為是對抗科技力量霸權施展於社會的思想家之一，他以存有論做為其責任倫理學的基礎，反對人類中心主義的說法，主張生命自身就是有機體存在的最高價值與終極目的，向人類發出「應然」的要求。他訴求一種具有未來性、非相互性、絕對性的責任，來保護自然及未來的世代。為了要實現這種新的責任原理，他提出了「恐懼啟發法」，希望能激起人的憂患意識，期能將災害降到最低程度。研究者希望經由優納斯責任倫理學的探究，瞭解其學說的優點與缺點，提供做為建立環境教育理論和改善環境教育實際的參考。

This article adapts the method of educational hermeneutics to discuss Hans Jonas' ethics of responsibility. Main research aims of this article as following: (1) to discuss the origin of Jonas' ethics of responsibility; (2) to analyze theoretical contents of Jonas' ethics of responsibility; (3) to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of Jonas' ethics of responsibility; (4) to explain the important implications of Jonas' ethics of responsibility for Taiwan's environmental education. Hans Jonas is considered one of thinkers that fight against the hegemony of technical power upon society. He gives an ontological explanation to resist the human-centric thinking, and points out that life itself is the highest value and ultimate end of organism. What's more, the objective value claims of ”ought” to man to take the responsibility for its subjects. He appeals to a prospective, unreciprocal, and categorical responsibility to protect nature and to save future generations. To realize the new ethics, he proposes ”the heuristics of fear”, which means to predict doom in prevalence, therefore make man have consciousness of fear and inspire him to correct his own errors so as to lessen the possible disaster. I hope through inquiry into Jonas' ethics of responsibility to understand advantages and disadvantages about his theory. Then, I will offer it as reference, in order to build environmental education theory and to improve environmental education practice for our country.

1. Bateson, G.(1972).Steps to an ecology of mind.New York:Ballantine Books.
2. Bowers, C. A.(1995).Educating for an ecologically sustainable culture.New York:State University of New York Press.
3. DannDer, H.(1994).Methoden geisteswissenschaftlicher Pädagogik.München:Universitat Taschenbuch Verlag.
4. Diamond, J.(2005).Collapse :How societies choose to fail or succeed.New York:Viking.
5. Jonas, H.(1984).The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
6. Jonas, H.(2001).The phenomenon of life: Toward a philosophical biology.Illinois:Northwestern University Press.
7. Kant, I.,H. J. Paton Trans.(1964).Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals.New York:Harper & Row.
8. Wallack, F. B.(1980).The Epochal Nature of Process in Whitehead's Metaphysics.Albany:State University of New York Press.
9. Whitehead, A. N.(1925).Science and the Modern World.New York:The Macmillan Company.
10. Wolin, R.(2001).Heidegger's children.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
11. 方秋明(2004)。博士論文(博士論文)。上海，上海復旦大學。
12. 宋祖良譯、M. Heidegger著(1996)。海德格爾的技術問題及其它文章。台北:七略。
13. 林火旺(1999)。倫理學。台北:五南。
14. 台灣哲學學會2007年「價值與實在」哲學研討會
15. 俞懿嫻(2004)。懷海德形上學研究。東海大學文學院學報，45，375-425。
16. 俞懿嫻、懷海德(2002)。《科學與現代世界》中的機體思想。東海大學文學院學報，43，107-142。
17. 孫周興譯、M. Heidegger著(1994)。林中路。台北:時報。
18. 孫周興譯、M. Heidegger著(1998)。路標。台北:時報。
19. 梁福鎮(2006)。教育哲學：辯證取向。台北:五南。
20. 郭實渝(2000)。環境倫理與生態道德教育。教育資料集刊，25，79-97。
21. 陳嘉映譯、王慶節譯、M. Heidegger著(1989)。存在與時間。台北:唐山。
22. 楊冠政(2002)。環境倫理－環境教育的終極目標。環境教育學刊，創刊號，1-11。
23. 楊冠政(1995)。環境價值教育。教育資料館集刊，20，55-82。
24. 詹棟樑(1996)。教育倫理學。台北:明文。

1. 鄒慧美、梁福鎮(2011)。優納斯責任倫理學的教育涵義探究。教育科學期刊，10(2)，69-90。