English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 1341/3793 (35%)
Visitors : 2275284      Online Users : 34
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version

    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.taitheo.org.tw:8080/ir/handle/987654321/5340

    Title: 自然道德律--簡介並重新評價多瑪斯‧阿奎那的自然道德律
    Natural Moral Law—A Brief Introduction to and Reappraisal of Aquinas’ Natural Moral Law
    Authors: 陳尚仁
    Chen Shang-jen
    Keywords: 自然道德律(Natural moral law)
    多瑪斯‧阿奎那(Thomas Aquinas)
    神學大全(Summa Theologiae)
    謨爾(G. E. Moore)
    自然論的謬誤(Naturalistic Fallacy)
    菲尼斯(John Finnis)
    卡爾、巴特(Karl Barth)
    Date: 2008
    Issue Date: 2013-05-09T07:35:10Z (UTC)
    Publisher: 台灣神學院
    Abstract: 多瑪斯認為「自然道德律就是人作為理性的受造物對於永恆律的參與。」多瑪斯根據羅馬書2:14-15指出外邦人雖然沒有上帝給他們的成文法,但是他們有自然道德律,所以每個人能夠知道善惡。四件基本的善就是生命、生育、知識及社會性。從這裡,人類可以推出其他的誡命和善惡的行為判斷。在哲學領域中,謨爾稱從實然命題演繹到應然命題是犯了「自然論的謬誤」。但是福蘭克納(William Frankena)主張「自然論的謬誤」根本上不是謬誤,也沒有犯邏輯上的錯誤。菲尼斯(John Finnis)認為自然道德律不是、也不必由實然演繹到應然。在神學領域中,巴特認為人類在墮落之後,已經不可能靠著人的能力去認識上帝及上帝的道,所以人也不可能認識自然道德律,而且自然道德律過度偏重創造論的教義,卻忽略救贖論和基督論。Jeen Porter認為自然道德律並不是單靠人的能力去認識上帝的道,而是以聖經為中心的基督教倫理學反省。Porter指出,如果基督教神學中沒有創造論,基督論也就不能單獨成立。本文最後將重新評價自然道德律對於指引現代人的倫理生活的重要性。

    St. Thomas Aquinas contends that the natural law is the rational creature’sparticipation in the eternal law. Based on Romans 2:14–15, Aquinas indicates thatGentiles, who do not possess the written Scripture, still instinctively perceive natu-ral moral law and are able to tell good from evil and right from wrong. The mostbasic precepts of the natural law are the preservation of life, procreation, knowl-edge and sociability. Human beings are able to discern other precepts and makemoral judgments based on these basic precepts of the natural law. However, ob-jections to natural law theory have been raised by philosophers and theologians. G.E. Moore argues that it is a naturalistic fallacy to derive what ought to be fromwhat is. William Frankena defends natural law theory, arguing that this so-callednaturalistic fallacy is neither fallacious nor does it contain logical errors. John Finnisseeks to maintain natural law theory in a different way, arguing that natural lawtheory does not derive what ought to be from what is. Karl Barth was skeptical ofnatural law theory. He insisted that it is beyond the rational capacity of post-fallhuman beings to know God and perceive his will, and that sinful human beings donot have the ability to perceive the natural law. Barth was also critical of naturallaw theory for overemphasizing doctrines of creation and de-emphasizes Christologyand doctrines of redemption. The Catholic theologian, Jean Porter, suggests thatAquinas’ natural law is biblically grounded. She also tries to mitigate the gap be-tween the doctrine of creation and Christology.
    Relation: 台灣神學論刊 no.30
    Appears in Collections:[陳尚仁 (Chen, Shang-Jen, 1966)] 教師研究著作

    Files in This Item:

    There are no files associated with this item.

    All items in TAITHEO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback