詮釋性自然律理論

本文關注亞奎那下來的自然律，在道德倫理領域的重要內容，並回應一些基督新教神學家對自然律理論的批評，亦回應自休謨、摩爾等對自然律「實然-應然(Is-Ought Problem)」之「自然論謬誤(Naturalistic Fallacy）」的種種挑戰，現代自然律主義者以「復興目的論傳統」和「新自然律理論」為兩大進路應對，當中包括Ralph McInerny和麥金泰爾都主張復興目的論傳統，以找回道德爭議的立足點消解「實然-應然」之問題。持新自然律理論的Germain Grisez和John Finnis則採納了道德直覺主義（moral intuitionism）之方案，主張基本善等都是不證自明的。最後本文提出「詮釋性自然律理論(Hermeneutical Natural Law Theory)」為方案，這以詮釋學方法建立之目的論是基於聖經／神學研究、並合乎基本現代學科知識和基於人類的道德情感與直覺等各種相關因素。這亦是嘗試復興目的論傳統，並避免過去自然律主義者被批評的問題。

The article focuses on Natural Law Theory in moral realm since Thomas Aquinas, and responds to the criticism of the natural law theory by some Protestant theologians. It also responds to the criticism of "Is-Ought" problem and Naturalistic Fallacy of the natural law by David Hume and G. E. Moore. The contemporary natural law supporters respond to the challenges with two major approaches: the revival of the teleological tradition and New Natural Law Theory. For instance, Ralph McInerny and Alasdair MacIntyre hinges on the revival of teleological tradition as the standpoint to fix the “Is-Ought Problem”. New natural law theory by Germain Grisez and John Finnis put forward moral intuitionism as the solution in which basic moral principles and goodness are considered self-evident. Hermeneutical Natural Law Theory set as the concluded suggestion to work out the problem, counting to fortify a teleology established by the hermeneutical method based on biblical and theological research, contemporary disciplinary knowledge, human sentiment and moral intuition, and various related factors.