rss
email
twitter
facebook
顯示具有 性倫理 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 性倫理 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2014年2月23日

台灣的性革命

眾所周知,在六十年代西方發生一場性革命,在短短幾十年間性觀念有翻天覆地的改變,不單性解放的意識形態(即是說性行為基本上不應被道德規範),由邊緣變成主流,西方人的性行為與文化也大大開放。傳統的力量嘗試反撲,這在美國便引發一場文化戰爭,隨著性革命的弊病漸為人知,文化也有些少回歸傳統,但整體來說很多改變已是積習難返。亞洲素來對西方文化的發展亦步亦趨,性革命或性解放的大潮已吹襲亞洲,特別是在相當西化的大城市中,2001319日的《時代週刊》(亞洲版) 就是以「亞洲的性革命」為封面主題。本文集中討論性革命在華人社會(主要以台灣為例) 的開展,希望喚起教會的關注,和更多基督徒以具體行動回應。

2013年8月14日

性解放哲學簡評:性權、性隨便和婦女解放

性革命的性解放哲學
性革命有不少實際的議程,如娼妓合法化、多元化婚姻和取消所有性行為的年齡限制,但最終它的目標是整體社會性倫理的革命:把性愛分家,使性非神聖化,及令社會接受所有性愛表達的形式。不要看輕這種意識形態,不少香港的知識分子都為其提供支持,一些概念(如性權即人權、性交好像握手)經過反覆的傳播,會慢慢滲到一般人腦海中,新一代的語言和思想都在很快改變!教會的性倫理傾向保守,清楚性革命的思想挑戰,可促進教會的反省和更新。此外,知己知彼,才可合理地回應。我在下面就幾點簡略談談性解放的意識形態。

2011年7月3日

自由性愛觀:從基督教倫理的角度回應

關啟文,〈自由性愛觀:從基督教倫理的角度回應〉,戴《中國神學研究院期刊》36期,20041月,頁15-46
PAPER SUBMITTED TO THE CGST JOURNAL

(The Liberal View of Sex: A Response from the Perspective of Christian Ethics)

Abstract
The modern society is plagued by the ideology of sexual liberation which says that any kind of sexual behaviour, as long as it doesn’t hurt other people and is done out of consent, is legitimate and morally acceptable. I call it the Liberal View of Sex. In contrast, the Christian View of Sex regards sex as a gift from God. Different forms of sexual behaviour can be judged acceptable or unacceptable with reference to the creation purpose and design plan of God. Since the Liberal View is becoming more prevalent and poses a serious challenge to the Christian church, it is incumbent on Christian intellectuals to explore how we should respond to this kind of philosophy.

In this paper, I argue for a combination of approaches, and note the merits and limitations of each. I adopt the presuppositional approach to defend the legitimacy of our adhering to Christian presuppositions. It is because in a pluralistic society neither the Christian presuppositions nor the secularist presuppositions (which lie behind the Liberal View of Sex) can be strictly proven or overthrown on neutral grounds. Not only the sexual liberationists but also the Christians have a right to use democratic means to promote their values. However, to avoid a complete deadlock and to enhance the public credibility of the Christian position, I further propose several criteria to evaluate different presuppositions. I also argue that the Liberal View does not fare very well under these criteria.

First, a value system should at least be internally coherent. However, the Liberal View suffers from many kinds of inconsistency or internal tension. Second, a value system should conform to our well-established moral intuitions or common-sense. I point out that the Liberal View of Sex flagrantly violates our moral intuitions about appropriate sexual behaviour. Third, a value system should contribute to a good life and happiness of human beings but the Liberal View tends to destabilize the society and cause many kinds of social problem. On all three counts, the Liberal View of Sex is not beyond reproach. In addition to holding fast to the faith, Christians should also utilize these kinds of public argument to criticize the Liberal View of Sex. While each type of argument has inherent limitations, the combination of them does build up a cumulative case against the ideology of sexual liberation.

簡評吳敏倫的性倫理

簡評吳敏倫的性倫理[1]

            關啟文,香港浸會大學宗教及哲學系


吳敏倫博士是香港的知名人物,傳媒每逢要討論性愛問題的時候,總愛找他訪問。他是香港大學醫學院的精神科教授,曾多年任「性教育促進會」的會長,出版多本關於性的著述,其「性專家」、「性博士」的姿態已深入民心。他鍥而不捨地提倡激進的性革命觀點,不斷抨擊不贊成性革命的人(本文稱這些人為「傳統派」),怪不得有人稱他為「性鬥士」。本文首先扼要介紹他的觀點,然後作初步的評論。

吳敏倫的理論基礎

我們要先了解吳敏倫的知識論和價值觀的基本原則。在認知方面,他明確表示,縱使在性的問題上,我們也應該採用理性、邏輯、和科學的方法去探求(94:2)(97a:57)[2],而且絕不應該使用其他方法(如直覺),因此,處理一切經驗事實和因果關係等問題時,科學證據極其重要,而個別例子則不能視為有效的證據。

        至於道德方面,吳敏倫似乎傾向功利主義(utilitarianism),判斷一些見解的時候,應該看看這些見解最終能否為人為己都帶來利益(94:46)。他厭惡嚴格的義務論(deontology),認為世上並沒有放諸四海而皆準的道德標準,任何做法本質上都沒所謂對與錯 (94:112)。他也不贊同康德派以是否非人化(dehumanization)的角度去評論性問題,例如,好些傳統派認為色情文化是非人性的,因為這種文化將異性用作性刺激的工具。吳敏倫回應時直截了當地說,利用異性來刺激性幻想是最自然、最直接、和最有效的方法,難道要利用同性、物件、或動物來刺激性幻想嗎?(94:157) 「一個人怎樣才算是一個人」,其實是相對的(94:264),而且,社會上不也有許多把他人當作工具的例子嗎(94:265)