本研究主要析理台灣教育界對於懲罰議題的不同立場，藉以探討懲罰與教師責任之間的倫理辯證關係。研究問題主要回答有五。 本研究的第一個研究問題是：「以往理論上所認可的懲罰正當性有那些？」我們的回覆是：基於公平正義的應報論、以及基於社會效益而的嚇阻論及改造論。應報論認為學生犯錯應當為其行為付出代價，嚇阻論認為懲罰學生是為了避免有人再敢以身試法，改造論則是希望幫助學生改過而不再犯。 這些懲罰理論所持的正當性都十分有理據。不過，由於批判教育學者及Foucault的啟發，懲罰所依恃的規則以及所仰賴的權威都有商榷的餘地，不應視為理所當然。固然懲罰犯錯者可能懷有善意，但這善意也未必是不能檢討的。再者，教育現場時常不當使用懲罰（體罰），像這種暴力對待學生的方式實在是對學生人權的一大侵犯。故本研究第二個研究問題「懲罰的正當性在當今有無修正的必要？」即證為有此必要。 再就以往台灣教育場域何以慣用懲罰之結構性因素予以考察，發現傳統文化的影響曾構成支持懲罰的結構之一部分，但是升學主義、管理主義所帶來的教育扭曲較具決定性。此外，師資培育的專業化過程並未明顯改善所謂「日治時期遺留下來的惡習」－體罰。教育專業的論述裡頭，對於體罰雖有反對之意見，但仍持適度保留的態度－即懲罰雖是下下策，但它可用，唯須慎用。因此，本研究第三個研究問題「往昔傾向支持懲罰的脈絡是什麼？」答覆如上。 既然往昔存在著支持懲罰的脈絡，那麼我們是否有超越之作法可以解決這樣的難題，便成了反對懲罰立場必須提供的論證。我們在第五章介紹了關懷倫理學的主張，這項倫理主張可以補足以往我們只訴諸於正義為最高價值的空缺，也就是以一個更全方位關照到事務情、理、法三面倫理學來看待犯錯者是否一定要懲罰的議題。再者，我們也認為教師情意智慧的培養有其必要，才得以解決一部分現今時常因情緒控制不佳而造成校園體悲劇的遺憾。同時，教師應當打破沈默文化、勇於發聲，並正視學生的反抗文化所傳達的背後意涵，如此才不會因著教師自己的權威而成為壓迫的一方。除了這些理論意味濃厚的述介外，我們也舉了一些體制內教育者之圖像供參。最後，我們以另類教育之另類思維與作法，讓我們見識到一些可行的替代方案，既可兼顧到學習者本身的自主性，也關注到集體的秩序。於是，本論文第四個研究問題「有無超越懲罰以外的管教理念與參考作法？」我們的答覆是有的，而且還陸續在繁衍中… 最後一個研究問題「教育專業倫理如何看待與拿捏懲罰議題？」是本論文的總結。我們確認了教育專業所致力的價值，乃是真、善、美的實踐。師者的教育責任在於其有義務確保這樣的事情發生，或至少他／她必須長養著這樣的環境。 教師專業責任的高標，在於關懷所有學生並致力於其最佳之利益。教師專業責任的低標，則在於公平正義原則下不傷害學生為原則。 教育責任含納著管教或不管教，不管教不意謂放棄，而是等待緣熟而教。管教也未必需要懲罰，不懲罰也可使之省過。這些都需要智慧才可以判斷。教師專業倫理即是確保教師可以做出這樣的判斷。 懲罰學生不應指向於學業學習上，而應將其應用於德育、群育上的偏差行為之對治上。而且對於懲罰必須有這樣的判斷共識：動機利他、方法適當、時機妥切等三項條件均具備，才算是符合教育專業倫理。 最後，也別忘了批判教育學與Foucault給我們的忠言。懲罰是一個事件。整個處理學生行為的始末過程是身教的示範，也是教育得以展現善意的最佳時機。同時，懲罰者的動機若不具善意，則任何形式的懲罰，那怕是輕柔的，都可能是支配關係而存在。那麼，懲罰學生即使是盡了教育者的責任，也變得不符合教師專業倫理了！ / The aim of the dissertation is to clear out the concepts between “punishment” and “responsibility” beyond the discourses of education in Taiwan. It is proposed five main questions here, the core of all the questions is to answer the ethics for professionals in education, especially for teachers. The first question to be discussed is how is it thought justified of punishment in theories. Generally speaking, there are three kinds of theories of punishment offering justification acknowledged. They are retributive theory, deterrent theory, and reformative theory. Punishment is justified in response to offenders’ desert, or to threat offenders from doing again, or as a means to re-educate people, in these three different visions of theories. There is no disagreement on these three theories that the assumption that rules are authorized and those who break the rules should be punished without excuses. In the context of (post-)modern times, though the justification of punishment were wildly accepted, we must notice the construction of punishment-rule, authority and pain is need to be reexamined. For Foucault, according Discipline and Punish, punishment is in the same sense of discipline, namely without discipline there is no punishment neither. Critical theorists begin with the premise that people are unfree and inhabit a world life with contradictions and asymmetries of power and privilege. Under such context of real life, punishment is the means of hegemony without doubt. The advocates of human rights see punishment as violence. It is mistaken to think that corporal punishment accepted in education. Children should be raised up and educated in atmosphere filled of dignity and respects, not the treatment of punishment (especially physically). All these views challenge the rules governed punishment, question the authorized power to exert punishment, and reject the pain on the human bodies. The evidence shown here is that justification of punishment theories have to be rectified. Furthermore, we have recalled the context why punishment used throughout in schools in Taiwan. It seems reasonable to conclude: teacher professionalism in Taiwan did not prepare our teachers well to reform the phenomenon of punishment abuse. We also offered some alternatives to educators for teaching without punishment. We drew attention to the ethics of “care”, in contrast to the traditional ethics of “justice”, meet the needs of education well. Some real examples and useful thoughts were shown that the preparation and in-service training of teacher professionals need to be reformed too. Finally, we come to a conclusion of punishment and responsibility of teachers. It needs to be recognized as part of ethics of educators.