2025年9月9日，多名高中生在社群平台Threads上發文，揭露北區國文模擬考（北模）的作文題目「我的媽媽是代理孕母」，引發了來自學生、網友與KOL的強烈反彈。這道考題不僅引發「噁心」、「不尊重」的怒火，更掀起一場關於教育倫理與命題自由的大型辯論。
代理孕母成北模作文題，是預設立場還是思辨練習？
（資料來源：網路溫度計）
北模作文題「我的媽媽是代理孕母」
北模的這道作文題要求學生以第一人稱視角，撰寫一篇關於「我的媽媽是代理孕母」的文章，描述內心的情感轉折。考題除了介紹代理孕母的種類，還改編多位青少年對母親擔任代理孕母的心聲，希望學生代入情境，從第一視角寫出內心掙扎或理解感動。
引爆怒火！北模作文題目遭各方抨擊
題目與引導文字一曝光，立刻讓考生們感到不滿，紛紛怒轟「題目噁心」、「完全沒有在尊重」。許多學生認為，北模的這道題目並非讓他們論述對代理孕母的看法，而是直接預設了立場，強迫他們代入一個可能違背個人價值觀的角色。其中，更讓眾人感到不適的是出版社在範文中提供的句子，如「有些人想當媽媽，卻沒有機會，我只是把我有的，借給她用一下」，以及「一個女人決定用身體幫助另一個女人完成夢想」等。這些文字被認為是高度引導性的，也引發「物化女性」的質疑。
北模作文題目爛、物化女性成熱論話題
網友們紛紛表示「北模你到底在幹嘛」、「我的媽媽不是代理孕母，她依然教會我愛和給予」、「引起這麼大的風波，出題者現在真的知道自己的問題在哪裡了嗎」。探索概念中也出現了「物化女性」、「真是個爛題目」等負面字眼，顯示此事件已從單純的考題爭議，上升至對女性身體自主權的質疑。
教育局、學團針對北模作文題的回應
（圖片來源：Youtube, A two-year-old's solution to the trolley problem）
新北市教育局回應北模作文題爭議
針對外界質疑，新北市教育局回應，北模的模擬考卷由翰林出版社自行命題及審題，再提供給各校使用，並非教育局統一命題或指定教材。
翰林出版社回應北模作文題爭議
提供考題的翰林出版社於9月10日下午2點15分針對北模作文題發布聲明，對造成考生們的困惑與不適深表歉意，並將進行檢討與改進。翰林承諾將採取三大措施：強化審題流程，邀請更多專業教師與專家參與；建立更多審題機制，確保試題兼具教育意義與符合社會期待；以及提升命題師資專業，未來會用最高標準檢視試題品質。
北模的出題為何引發爭議？
（資料來源：Facebook）
北模考題設計的品質低劣
許多評論者認為代理孕母確實是值得深入探討的社會議題，問題出在北模作文考題設計的品質低劣。然而，我們必須理解「情意題」的本質並非測驗邏輯分析能力，它與「知性題」截然不同，目的不在於要求考生針對代孕議題進行辯論，而是希望考生融入個人情感體驗，評量其「情感表達與抒發的能力」。
Many commentators believe that surrogate motherhood is indeed a social issue worth deep exploration, with the problem lying in the poor quality of the exam question design. However, we must understand that the nature of "emotional questions" is not to test logical analysis abilities. They are completely different from "intellectual questions." The purpose is not to require students to debate surrogacy issues, but to hope students integrate personal emotional experiences to evaluate their "ability to express and articulate feelings."
儘管社會大眾普遍抨擊北模這道試題缺乏道德考量、有失尊重且立場偏頗，但命題者的真正意圖似乎就是要觸動考生的情緒反應，因此特意營造具爭議性的假想情境，甚至在題幹中明確要求：「請誠實表達你內心的矛盾與焦慮感受」。
Although the general public widely criticizes this test question for lacking moral consideration, being disrespectful, and having biased positions, the question writers' true intention seems to be to trigger students' emotional reactions, deliberately creating controversial hypothetical scenarios, even explicitly requiring in the question: "Please honestly express your inner conflicts and anxiety."
但北模這種借用哲學「思想實驗」的做法，真的合適嗎？
But is this approach of borrowing philosophical "thought experiments" really appropriate？
北模代理孕母題目符合「思想實驗」規範？
哲學家創造思想實驗的初衷，是透過虛構情境來幫助人們察覺自身可能存在的道德盲點。優秀的思想實驗能夠啟發創造性思維，促進倫理層面的對話，譬如廣為人知的「電車難題」，或是柏拉圖提出的隱身戒指實驗：「若你獲得一枚能讓你隱形的戒指，是否還會嚴格遵守法律約束？」
Philosophers create thought experiments with the original intention of helping people discover their potential moral blind spots through fictional scenarios. Excellent thought experiments can inspire creative thinking and promote ethical dialogue, such as the well-known "trolley problem" or Plato's invisibility ring experiment: "If you obtained a ring that could make you invisible, would you still strictly follow legal constraints?"
思想實驗倫理規範一：避免傷害準則
然而，哲學家在構思思想實驗時，實際上需要遵循特定的倫理規範。首要原則便是「避免傷害準則」，絕不能要求參與者設想可能對其造成心理創傷的情境，例如不應要求受試者「想像自己遭受性暴力」。基於這項理由，哲學家John D. Norton曾建議停止使用「薛丁格的貓」這個思想實驗，因為它要求人們想像動物處於生死疊加狀態，本身就涉嫌動物虐待的概念。從眾多考生表達「反感」、「不適」的反應來看，這次的考題顯然已經違背了這項基本原則。當然，傷害認定的標準因人而異，在代孕制度已經合法化的國家，類似題目造成的負面影響可能會相對較小。
However, when philosophers design thought experiments, they actually need to follow specific ethical standards. The primary principle is the "avoid harm rule," which absolutely cannot require participants to imagine scenarios that might cause them psychological trauma, such as not asking subjects to "imagine yourself experiencing sexual violence." Based on this reason, philosopher John D. Norton once suggested stopping the use of the "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment because it requires people to imagine animals in a life-death superposition state, which itself involves the concept of animal abuse. From many students expressing "disgust" and "discomfort," this exam question clearly violated this basic principle. Of course, harm recognition standards vary from person to person. In countries where surrogacy systems are already legalized, similar questions might cause relatively less negative impact.
思想實驗倫理規範二：效益衡量
思想實驗應該遵循的第二項原則是「效益衡量」，命題者是否曾經評估過能夠降低潛在傷害的替代表達方式。舉例而言，題目完全可以改為：「假設未來台灣將代理孕母制度合法化，當你身邊熟識的人選擇從事這項工作時，你會產生什麼樣的感受？」
The second principle that thought experiments should follow is "benefit assessment." Did the question writers ever evaluate alternative expressions that could reduce potential harm? For example, the question could have been completely changed to: "Suppose Taiwan legalizes surrogate motherhood in the future. When someone you know well chooses to engage in this work, what kind of feelings would you have?"
或者參考110學年度學科能力測驗的作文題目，該題引用了哲學家Robert Nozick的「經驗機器」概念，這是一個更適合高中學生思考層次的實驗設計：「假設存在一部能夠提供任何理想幸福體驗的機器，甚至可以隨時調整設定，無論是成為領導人物、環遊世界各地......使用者嚮往的『完美人生』都能預先規劃。面對這樣的選擇，人類會如何決定？」
Or consider the 110th academic year college entrance exam essay question, which quoted philosopher Robert Nozick's "experience machine" concept. This was an experimental design more suitable for high school students' thinking level: "Suppose there exists a machine that can provide any ideal happiness experience, and can even adjust settings at any time. Whether becoming a leader, traveling around the world... the 'perfect life' that users desire can all be pre-planned. Faced with such a choice, how would humans decide?"
思想實驗倫理規範三：知情同意權
思想實驗必須遵循的第三項核心準則，是絕對不能侵犯「知情同意權」。所有參與作答的人員，本質上都是思想實驗的「研究協作者」，他們的回應使研究者能夠了解社會大眾對特定情境的反應方式。當你刻意建構令人不安的場景，例如：「請想像你是戰爭罪行的策劃者...」，這等同於強迫研究協作者參與一項違背倫理標準的實驗。
The third core principle that thought experiments must follow is absolutely not violating "informed consent rights." All personnel participating in answering are essentially "research collaborators" in the thought experiment. Their responses enable researchers to understand how the general public reacts to specific scenarios. When you deliberately construct disturbing scenarios, such as: "Please imagine you are a war crime planner," this is equivalent to forcing research collaborators to participate in an experiment that violates ethical standards.
對比法國高中哲學考試，2012年的題目是：「如果沒有國家存在，我們是否會更加自由？」同樣是假設性情境，法國高中生思考的是國家體制與個人自由的關係，台灣高中生卻被迫思考「假如你的母親成為代理孕母」這類私人化問題。台灣教育體系最迫切需要哲學素養提升的，恐怕正是那些頻頻出錯的命題教師們。
Compare this to France's high school philosophy exam. The 2012 question was: "If no state existed, would we be more free?" Similarly a hypothetical scenario, French high school students think about the relationship between state systems and individual freedom, while Taiwanese high school students are forced to think about privatized questions like "if your mother became a surrogate mother." What Taiwan's education system most urgently needs in terms of philosophical literacy improvement is probably those question-writing teachers who frequently make mistakes.
