研究生: |
林稚維 LIN JR WEI |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
Ruth Jonathan倫理自由主義在教育上之應用 Ruth Jonathan’s Thoughts about Ethical Liberalism and Its Applications in Education |
指導教授: |
林逢祺
Lin, Ferng-Chyi |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
教育學系 Department of Education |
論文出版年: | 2002 |
畢業學年度: | 90 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 130 |
中文關鍵詞: | 教育自由 、教育平等 、自由主義 、新自由主義 、倫理自由主義 |
英文關鍵詞: | liberty of education, equality of education, Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism, Ethical Liberalism, Ruth Jonathan |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:246 下載:51 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究旨在探討「Ruth Jonathan倫理自由主義在教育上之應用」,希望藉此闡明市場化教育改革之利弊得失,並從中尋繹我國教育改革可資借鏡的方針。
本論文主要之研究目的為:(一)理解Ruth Jonathan倫理自由主義理論之全象。(二)認識Ruth Jonathan倫理自由主義思想在近代自由主義思想中之地位。(三)認識Ruth Jonathan對於新自由主義教育理論之評判。
(四)理解Ruth Jonathan論個體發展與教育資源分配之關係。(五)理解Ruth Jonathan論教育自由與教育平等之關係。(六)綜合研究結果,析論Ruth Jonathan倫理自由主義在教育上之應用。
根據前述的探討,本研究的結論如下:
一、Jonathan以倫理的角度重新詮釋自由主義的理想,解決自由主義價值中立所帶來的困境;再者,她提出實質的自由與構成的平等二概念,解決了自由主義長久以來在自由與平等二者之間的拉鋸。
二、Jonathan指出教育是一種地位財,容易造成原地位有利者愈有利而原地位不利者愈不利的情況出現。因此新自由主義市場化的教育改革是錯誤的,而教育資源之分配需有適度的規範。
三、Jonathan認為教育平等是教育自由的必要條件,國家必須以公共的行動提供理想的公共教育,方能真正達成自由主義的理想。
最後,本研究對我國教育改革提出以下建議:(一)教育改革者應該建立正確的自我本體觀。(二)從事教育改革,應該破除教育平等必然達成社會平等的迷思。(三)教育改革應該照顧社會處境不利者。(四)教育改革不能完全訴諸市場法則,應該適度規範教育活動。(五)教育內容應該適當地反映各族群和各階層的價值與文化。
Ruth Jonathan’s Thoughts about Ethical Liberalism
and Its Applications in Education
Abstract
The main purpose of this research is to explore Ruth Jonathan’s thoughts about Ethical Liberalism and its applications in education, with the hope this discourse would be helpful to explain that the advantages and disadvantages of educational reform which uses free market theory, and find out some suggestions for our educational revolution from it.
The purposes of this thesis are as follows: (1) to understand Ruth Jonathan’s whole theory of Ethical Liberalism. (2) to realize the status of Ruth Jonathan’s Ethical Liberalism in Liberalism. (3) to realize Ruth Jonathan’s critics of Neo-Liberalism. (4) to understand Ruth Jonathan how to discuss the relationship between individuals’ development and education resources. (5) to understand Ruth Jonathan how to discuss the relationship between educational liberty and educational equality. (6) to explore the applications of Ruth Jonathan’s Ethical Liberalism on education.
Based on the results above, the conclusions of this study are summarized as follows:
1. Jonathan re-explains Liberalism’s ideals with an ethical view, resolving the dilemma which the principle of value-free causes, and she offers “substantive liberty” and “constitutive equality” to resolve the conflict of liberty and equality.
2. Jonathan asserts education is such a positional goods that it is easy to cause education cumulative. So Neo-Liberalism’ educational theory is wrong, and the distribution of education resources needs appropriate regulation.
3.Jonathan claims that equality of education is the necessary condition to liberty of education. The state or the government should provide persons ideal public education with public action, in order to makes Liberalism’s ideal come true.
Finally, some suggestions of this study are provided for educational reform as follows: (1) reformers should formulate right conception of the individual. (2) the myth of that educational equality must result in social equality should be given up. (3) people in disadvantaged situation should be taken care of. (4) education activities should be appropriately regulated. (5) the context of education should be reflected in the value and culture of all ethics and statuses appropriately.
一、 中文部份:
(一)書籍
四一0教育改革聯盟(1996)。民間教育改造藍圖。台北:時報。
石元康(1995)。當代自由主義理論。台北:聯經。
羊憶容(1994)。教育與國家發展—台灣經驗。台北:桂冠。
余英時(1984)。自由與平等。台中:漢新。
何信全(1988)。海耶克自由理論研究。台北:聯經。
沈姍姍(2000)。國際比較教育學。台北:正中。
勞思光(1984)。新編中國哲學史。台北:三民。
張明貴(1986)。約翰彌爾。台北:東大。
張建成(2002)。批判的教育社會學研究。台北:學富。
楊瑩(1996)。一九八八年後英國的教育改革。載于黃政傑(主編),各國教育改革動向。台北:師苑。
歐陽教(1985)。德育原理。台北:文景。
歐陽教(1998)。教育哲學導論。台北:文景。
Fromm, E.(1941 / 1994).Escape from Freedom.
莫迺滇(譯)。逃避自由。台北:志文。
McInerney, P.K.(1990 / 1996). Introduction to Philosophy.
林逢祺(譯)。哲學概論。台北:桂冠。
(二)論文與期刊
江宜樺(1998a)。自由主義哲學傳統之回顧。當代,127,16-28。
江宜樺(1998b)。現代社會中的個人權利。當代,129,38-47。
余桂霖(1995)論羅爾斯的正義論。復興崗學報,55,1-23。
余桂霖(1996)。論杜爾金的正義權利理論。復興崗學報,58,1-30。
林火旺(1992)。自由主義與政治中立。美國月刊,7(9),74-83。
洪丁福(1998)。多元社會之民主—國家角色與經濟自由。中國文化大學政治研究所學報,7,31-45。
洪謙德(1995)。諾錫克政治哲學的析評。哲學與文化,22(5),410-421。
徐振雄(1999)。論法律權利和道德權利—羅爾斯「正義原則」即權利之詮釋。萬能學報,21,79-98。
陳曼玲(2002,4月27日)。多元入學昂貴,六成學生懷念聯考。中央日報,13版。
張世雄(1996)。「需要」的概念與社會福利:社會主義、自由主義與英國式的福利國家。人文及社會科學集刊,8(2),257-304。
許國賢(2000)。平等與自由主義民主。政治科學論叢,12,101-130。
萬俊人(1997)。自由主義政治哲學的基礎建構—評羅爾斯的《政治自由主義》。哲學雜誌,19,162-189。
楊肅獻(1998)。英國政治傳統中的「自由」觀念。當代,127,44-54。
鄭端耀(1997)。國際關係「新自由制度主義」理論之評析。問題與研究,36(12),1-22。
黎一皋(1998)。論霍布斯與斯賓諾莎的自然權利。人文及社會學科教學通訊,9(1),58-81。
二、英文部份:
(一)書籍
Berlin, I.(1958). Two concepts of liberty. London: Clarendon Press.
Berlin, I.(1995). Liberty. In T. Honderich(ed.), the Oxford companion to Philosophy(pp.485-7). Oxford: Oxfod University.
Bradley, F.H.(1927). Ethical Studies. Oxford: Oxfod University.
Coleman, J.L.(1988). Markets, Morals and the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Collini, S. (1979)Liberalism and Sociology: L.T. Hobhouse and Political Argument in England 1880-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Cooper, D.E.(1980). Illusion of Equality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Dewey, J.(1916). Democracy and Education. New York:the Macmillan .
Dewey, J.(1919). Chinese national sentiment. In J.A. Boydston(ed.),John Dewey: The middle woks,1899-1924.(pp.215-27).
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.
Dworkin, R.(1978). Liberalism. In: S. Hampshire (ed.),Public & Private Morality(pp.113-143). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Dworkin, R.(1985).A Matter of Principle. Econman(2000)。Efficiency & Loss.
Retrieved May 29,2002,from
http://ecoman.uhome.net/A-level/Efficiency&Loss/ParetoEfficiency.htm
Cambridge:MA.Harvard University.
Hayek, F.(1960). Equality, value ,and merit. In: F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty(pp.85-102). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Jonathan, R. (1986). Education and the ‘needs of society’.In Hartnett, A. and Naish, M.(eds.), (pp.135-145). London: Falmer..
Jonathan, R.(1993).Parent’s rights in schooling.: Muun, P. (ed.). Parents and Schools: Customs, Managers or Parents (pp.11-26). London: Routledge.
Jonathan, R.(1997).Illusory Freedoms: Liberalism, Education and the Market. Journal of Philosophy of Education.31(1).
Kymlicka, W.(1995).Liberalism. In T. Honderich(ed.), the Oxford companion to Philosophy(pp.483-5). Oxford: Oxfod University.
Locke, J.(1690/1975). Two treaties of civil government. London: Dent.
MacIntyre, A.(1981). After Virtue. London:Duckworth.
MacIntyre, A.(1988). Who’s Justice? Which Rationality?. London:Duckworth.
Macpherson, C.B.(1962).The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism:From Hobbes to Locke. Oxford:Clarendon.
Mill, J.S.(1859/1962). On Liberty. London: Fontana.
Nozick, R.(1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Book.
Rawls, J.(1971). A theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Rawls, J.(1993).Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University.
Raz, J.(1986). The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon.
Sandel, M.(1982). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge:Cambridge University.
Sandel, M.(1984). Introduction. In M. Sandel(ed.), Liberalism and its critics(pp.1-11).New York: New York University.
Singer, P.(1995). Dialectic. In T. Honderich(ed.), the Oxford companion to Philosophy(p.198.). Oxford: Oxfod University.
Taylor, C.(1991). The Malaise of Modernity. Concord Ontario: Anansi.
(二)期刊與網路資料
Econman(2000)。Efficiency & Loss.
Retrieved May 29,2002,from
http://ecoman.uhome.net/A-level/Efficiency&Loss/ParetoEfficiency.htm
Hollis, M. (1982).Education as a positional good. Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 16(2), 235-244.
Jonathan, R.(1989). Choice and control in education: parental rights and social justice. British Journal of Education studies,37 (4),321-338.
Jonathan, R. (1990). State education service or prisoner’s dilemma: the ‘hidden hand’ as source of educational policy. British Journal of Education studies,38 (2), 116-132.
Jonathan, R. (1995a).Liberal philosophy of education: a paradigm under strain. Journal of Philosophy of Education.29(1), 93-107.
Jonathan, R. (1995b). Education and moral development: the role of reason and circumstance. Journal of Philosophy of Education.29(3), 333-353.
Martinez, E. & Gacia, A. What is “ Neo-Liberalism” ? Retrieved May 20,2001,from http://aidc.org.za/archives/what is neo-lib.html
Olssen, M.(2000). Ethical liberalism, education and the ‘New Right’. Journal of Educational Policy,15(5), 481-508.
Rawls, J.(1985).Justice as fairness: political not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs,14(3).