Immanuel Kant（1724 – 1804）被視為啟蒙時期以來最後一位哲學家，其對於當代的思想銜接與理論彌合，具有無可取代的影響地位，同時，更影響後世諸多思想流派與重要思想家。而Kant美學不僅係美學領域的時代里程碑，其與藝術、文學和道德哲學的連結，更是受到各界的關注與研究。
本研究透過結合理論與實務，以理論分析與半結構式訪談等研究方法，旨在探討Kant美學中所論「美是道德的象徵」之意涵，並藉由該觀點連結體制外學習組織―曠野藝類大學的美學課程經驗，進而闡釋美作為道德象徵對教育現場的蘊義及其可能性。通過探討Kant對於審美判斷的觀點，本研究發現「美是道德的象徵」的內涵所建構成的思考圖像：主體先藉由對審美判斷的原則進行反思，再歸納反思之結果並連結美與道德的相似性關係，進而以此反思統合的原則，針對道德具有的原則進行反思。其中，反思的結果可初步歸納為自由與謙遜原則。
而Kant對於美作為道德象徵的圖像可從曠野藝類大學的美學課程中，獲得實踐的機會。進行該美學課程教學的林教師能根據自身的專業背景、生命經歷、美學觀點，反思其對於美學課程的設計、教學與實踐之情形，並視教師的美學立場為教學的道德倫理，以更自由、謙卑和感性的層次，與學生討論互動，從而達到共善、共美、共好的成長過程。
歸納Kant論「美是道德的象徵」意涵以及在曠野藝類大學的實踐經驗，本研究尋繹其中的意義在於實踐者美學式的反思，並能根據反思所獲之自由、謙遜和尊敬等概念，付諸於道德層面的實踐。對於實踐者自身，可作為素養陶養的來源；對於學習者，亦可以潛移默化的薰習，使其看見自身存在的尊嚴與價值。

The purpose of this study is to explore Kant’s thoughts on “Beauty as the symbol of Morality” and its possible implication for aesthetic and moral education. In order to understand his theoretical framework deeply, this study starts with a brief sketch of his background and the intellectual development of philosophy in Prussia. Secondly, this study discusses how Kant’s critical philosophy is formed, including critique of pure reason, critique of practical reason and critique of the power judgment. Next, this study is concentrated on the main content of Kant’s aesthetic and moral theory, which is based on a priori synthetic proposition, and what the “beauty as the symbol of morality” means. Finally, this study is combined the discussion mentioned above with the teaching experiences of Wildness Art+ University and uses it to analyze the practical possibility of beauty as the symbol of morality.
The conclusions of this study are as follows:
First, the meaning of “beauty as the symbol of morality” is that the subjective needs to make reflections by the aesthetic rules, then connecting the results to the moral rules which is roughly similar to the former one.
Second, the results of aesthetic reflection can be induced into two main elements: freedom and modesty. The former rule is relevant to the attitude when the subjectivity faces different situations and helps to understand the meaning of “human in the individual are ends”. The latter can replenish the insufficient of the freedom rule, and take respect into consideration.
Third, the concept of Kant’s beauty as the symbol of morality can be possibly taken into practice, especially in the aesthetic courses of Wildness Art+ University. It takes freedom, modesty, creativity, cooperation and love as their important teaching and learning rules. And these rules are based on the concept of arts, poems, literature and philosophy. Besides, the instructor, Ms. Lin, needs to combine the rules above with reflection and view her own aesthetic perspective as self-teaching morality and practice.
Forth, the instructor needs to cultivate his or her aesthetic attitude, which is related to freedom and modesty. And learners are vice versa. Thus, the instructor and learners of the course can achieve the common good and beautiful atmosphere for each other.
Finally, combined with Kant’s theory and the experiences of Wildness Art+ University, the educational system could use this kind of attitude which according to the reflection as the possible way to teach and learn what true aesthetics and morality are. For the instructor, this is the source of cultivating self-morality and attitude in beauty, and for the learners, it also can help them to understand their dignities and self-values.

一、中文部分
成中英、馮俊主編（2009）。康德與中國哲學智慧。北京：中國人民大學出版社。
牟宗三（譯註）（1983）。康德的道德哲學。台北：台灣學生。
牟宗三（譯註）（1992）。I. Kant著。康德：判斷力之批判 上冊。台北：台灣學生。
李平漚（譯）（1989）。J. Rousseau著。愛彌兒(Emile)。台北：五南。
李忠盛（2017）。康德美學的教育涵義研究。國立臺中教育大學教育學系研究所碩士論文，未出版。
李明輝（譯）（1988）。H. M. Baumgartner著。康德[純粹理性批判]導讀。台北：聯經。
李衍柱（2006）。西方美學經典文本導讀。北京：北京大學出版社。
李國山（2004）。羅素道德哲學。北京：九州。
李淳玲（2004）。康德哲學問題的當代思索。嘉義：南華大學社會所。
李淳玲（譯）（2011）。C. H. Wenzel著。康德美學。台北：聯經。
易杰雄（1991）。世界十大思想家：康德。台北：書泉。
林逢祺（2010b）。教育規準論。台北：五南。
林逢祺（譯）（2008）。D. Townsend著。美學概論。台北：學富。
林逢祺（譯）（2010a）。J. Rachels著。道德哲學要義。台北：麥格羅希爾出版社。
俞寄凡（譯）（2010）。黑田鵬信著。藝術學綱要。南京：江蘇美術出版社。
姚一葦（1987）。美的範疇論。台北：開明。
徐自立（譯）（2012）。C. Dickens著。狄更斯全集：第14卷 我們共同的朋友(Our Mutual Friends)。杭州：浙江工商大學出版社。
張志偉（1995）。康德的道德世界觀。北京：中國人民大學出版社。
曹俊峰（2003）。康德美學導論。台北：水牛。
勞承萬（2001）。康德美學論。北京：中國社會科學出版社。
彭文本（譯）（2006）。D. Henrich著。康德與黑格爾之間。台北：商周。
彭基相（譯）（1935）。Lindsay著。康德哲學。北京：商務印書館。
馮朝霖、許宏儒主編（2019）。千江有水千江月：坎伯神話理論的教育蘊意。台北：五南。
黃文範（譯）（1986）。L. Tolstoy著。戰爭與和平(War and Peace)。台北：書華。
黃倩茹（2004）。康德美學及其美育蘊義。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
黃振華（2005）。論康德哲學。台北：時英。
楊祖陶（2001）。康德黑格爾哲學研究。武漢：武漢大學出版社。
賈馥茗、陳寶山、黃漢昌等五人（譯）（2012）。I. Kant著。康德論教育。台北：五南。
趙廣明（2008）。康德的信仰。南京：江蘇人民出版社。
劉昌元（1986）。西方美學導論。台北：聯經。
劉國英（1999）。永久和平的倡議者―康德 作品選讀。台北：誠品。
范壽康（1929）。康德。上海：商務印書館。
鄧曉芒（譯）（2002）。I. Kant著。判斷力批判。北京：人民出版社。
鄧曉芒（譯）（2004）。I. Kant著。實踐理性批判。台北：聯經。
鄧曉芒（譯）（2015）。I. Kant著。純粹理性批判。台北：聯經。
盧雪崑（2010）。物自身與智思物：康德的形而上學。台北：里仁。
謝廣錚（2012）。康德與布洛的美感經驗論及其在課程與教學的應用。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系研究所博士論文，未出版。
羅聯輝（譯）（1987）。V. A. Sukhomlinski著。怎樣培養真正的人。湖南：湖南教育出版社。
二、英文部分
Berlin, I. (1969). Four essays on liberty. London: Oxford University Press.
Budd, M. (1998). Delight in the natural world: Kant on the aesthetic appreciation on nature. British Journal of Aesthetics, 30(1), pp. 1-18.
Caygill, H. (2000). A Kant Dictionary Blackwell Philosopher Dictionaries. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cohen, T. & Guyer, P. (1982). Essays in Kant's aesthetics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Garrison, J. W. (2004). The aesthetics of ethical virtue and the ethical virtue of aesthetics. Interchange, 35(2), pp.229-241.
Guyer, P. (1990). Feeling and freedom: Kant on aesthetics and morality. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 48(2), pp.137-146.
Guyer, P. (1993). Kant and the experience of freedom: essays on aesthetics and morality. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (1900). Critique of pure reason (J. M. D. Meiklejohn, Trans.). NY: Colonial Press. (Original work published 1781)
Kant, I. (1909). Critique of practical reason (T. K. Abbott, Trans.). London: Longmans. (Original work published 1788)
Kant, I. (1960). On pedagogy (A. Churton, Trans.). MI: University of Michigan Press. (Original work published 1803)
Kant, I. (1922). Kritik der Urteilskraft (K. Vorländer, Ed.). Leipzig: Felix Meiner Verlag. (Original work published 1790)
Kant, I. (2000). Critique of the power of judgement (P. Guyer, Ed., P. Guyer, & E. Matthews, Trans.). NY: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1790)
Kistner, U. (2007). Aesthetic judgment beyond good and evil: Of morality, taste, common sense, and critique. Neohelicon, 34(1), pp.101-113.
Koehn, D. (2010). Ethics, morality, and art in the classroom: Positive and negative relations. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 7, pp. 213-232.
Paton, H. J. (1947). The categorical imperative. London: Hutchinson.
Peters, R. S. (1966). Ethics and education. London: Allen and Unwin.
Schellekens, E. (2007). Aesthetics and morality. NY: Continuum.
Smith, N. K. (1961). Immanuel Kant’s critique of pure reason. London: Macmillan.
Tauber, Z. (2006). Aesthetic education for morality: Schiller and Kant. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 40 (3), pp. 22-47.
Wenzel, C. H. (2005). An introduction to Kant’s aesthetics: Core concepts and problems. Oxford: Blackwell Pub.