Abstract

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English. 當代生命倫理學近年逐漸脱離宗教和醫護傳統，趨向哲學和法律的方向。學者視脱離宗教和醫護傳統，趨向哲學和法律方向的生命倫理學為世俗進路的生命倫理學。世俗進路的生命倫理學關注世俗議題的討論，如人權、程式公義、個人定立的人生方向和共同利益，並強調對不公平和不公義的反抗。然而，許多學者論證世俗進路的生命倫理學的不足。恩格爾哈特提出，世俗進路的生命倫理學忽略美德和德性的論述，故此未能論及人類在實踐時遇到的困難(Engelhardt 1996, 419)。切里同樣批評世俗進路的生命倫理學忽略人類生存境況的探討，缺乏明確的道德基礎，因此無法對人類的苦難做出明確的回應（Cherry 2014, 337）。除了世俗進路的生命倫理學忽略檢視人類苦難和死亡的問題，以及缺乏追求真正的美善，譚認為，神學傳統長久以來思考上述問題。假如生命倫理學阻隔了神學宗教在這些議題的智慧，則是一個重大失誤(Tham 2008, 452; 2011, 49)。更重要的是，由信仰主導的宗教進路生命倫理學和由理性主導的世俗進路生命倫理學n」'以在良性角力中互相理解自身限制，並借鑑對方的優勢補充自身不足之處(Tham 2013,18)。譚在最新的文章〈生命倫理學：跨文化的探索〉不僅重申其理論觀點，並闡釋如何身體力行實踐世俗和宗教兩種進路的生命倫理學以及跨文化的互補。(撮要取自內文首段) The aim of this article is to examine Joseph Tham's “Bioethics: Cross-Cultural Exploration.” Tham argues that the secular approach to bioethics advocates ethical responsibilities through the concept of universal human rights. However, the concept of universal human rights is only a supposition with no foundational theory, which renders this concept incompatible with the spirit of many cultures. This article uses Confucian culture as an example to support Tham's argument that the ethical responsibilities in Confucianism are based on the ideas of loving with distinctions and family-oriented values, ideas which stand in opposition to the concepts of egalitarianism and libertarianism. As such, the religious approach to bioethics can be corrective and supplementary to the secular approach to bioethics. This article concludes by pointing out that Tham's explorations of cross-cultural dialogue in the bioethical debate contribute to the intercultural understanding and complementarity between the East and the West.