專業人員於網路討論公共議題的倫理性：以護家盟與下一代幸福聯盟的臉書粉絲平臺為例

The Professional’s Ethical Conflicts Arising from Crossing Public Issue with Others in Cyberspace: A Case of Happiness of the Next Generation Coalition’s and Family Guardian Coalition’s Facebook Fan Pages

本文的目的為探討專業人員於網際空間就公共議題提出主張與他人進行爭論時可能面臨的三重層倫理限制：1.專業倫理、2.政治社群成員的倫理、3.網路倫理，並爬梳整合此三層倫理的關係。初步結論為:專業倫理與政治社群成員的倫理性，乃基於特定專業身分、公共領域成員身分的倫理上要求；網路倫理則偏重實踐理性的倫理要求。然而，因扮演多重角色的人面臨多層倫理要求，必須藉由獨立美德：整全性（integrity）融貫的詮釋各不同層的倫理規範。換言之，因涉及公共議題的探討，故專業人員除基於本身專業信念（belief）與確信（conviction）提出客觀主張外，尚須立於所屬政治社群成員的倫理脈絡：秉持友愛的態度，與他成員共同探討「共善」的內容，並於制度中實踐該共善；社群成員須秉持「原則的一致性」的融貫立場設計相關制度。最後，應避免因網路場域的先天結構限制或缺陷，妨礙彼此間的溝通與討論。最後，本文將嘗試以具基督宗教牧者及平信徒為部分組成員的護家盟與下一代幸福聯盟的臉書粉絲平臺為例，就其網路領域討論同性婚議題的三重倫理性加以梳理、分析與比較。

The purpose of this research is to investigate three kinds of ethical limitations that professionals might face when advocating for positions on public issues and engaging in debates in online spaces—1. ethics for professionals; 2. ethics for members of a political community; and 3. cyberethics—and unravel the relationships between these ethical areas. The preliminary conclusion of this research is that the ethical limitations for the first two are only based on a particular professional identity and the ethical requirements of a position in the public sphere, while cyberethics stresses the ethical requirements of practical reason. However, because people serve in multifaceted roles and face many levels of ethical requirements, they must abide by a sole virtue—integrity—which permeates interpretations at every different level of ethical norms. In other words, because professionals are involved in discussions of public issues, they therefore, besides grounding their convictions in the beliefs of the profession itself and raising “truly objective” positions, must still stand within the ethical context of being a member of a political community. They should uphold a friendly attitude with other members to together discuss the common good and put that common good into practice within the system. Community members should uphold the coherent position of “consistency principle” devised by the relevant institution. Ultimately, they should avoid hindering communication and discussion with one another because of the inherent structural limitations or pitfalls of the internet space. Finally, this article attempts to tease out, analyze, and compare the three kinds of ethical limitations found in online discussions on the question of same-sex marriage by looking at the Facebook fan pages of the Family Guardian Coalition and the Coalition for the Happiness of Our Next Generation, two groups partly comprised of Christian pastors and ordinary faithful.