本文以懲罰為題，試圖回答「教師專業倫理如何看待與拿捏懲罰議題？」。支持懲罰的理論以應報論、嚇阻論及改造論三者為主，皆認為犯錯應罰。然而，這些懲罰理論所持的正當性雖有理據，但以批判教育學及Foucault 的觀點來看，懲罰所依恃的規則以及所仰賴的權威都有商榷的餘地。教育現場不當使用懲罰（體罰），這種暴力對待學生的方式是對學生人權的一大侵犯，此為人本學者極力反對的。再者，由於禮教與師道的傳統束縛，加上台灣特殊屬性（如政治專制、升學掛帥）的催化下，使得教師權威被濫用。以往教育專業論述的內容，也被部分教師誤用，甚至演變成適度體罰的論述依據。本文也另舉出關懷倫理學與另類教育二種取向作為教師替代懲罰學生的參考作法。藉由二次正反論證，本文最後獲致幾項結論：管教也未必需要懲罰；某些懲罰判斷選項有著理論的正當性支持，卻仍有諸多有待細論之空間；唯有「動機利他、方法適當（時機妥切）、結果令人滿意」等三項條件具備的懲罰判斷選項，才算是符合教育專業倫理，以此作為零體罰之後的教師專業倫理共識。

This paper aims to discuss the issue of punishment from the perspective of teachers’ professional ethics. Generally speaking, there are three kinds of theories of punishment, including retributive theory, deterrent theory, and reformative theory. Although the justifications of punishment are widely accepted, the rules and authority of punishment in the above theories are in doubt from the arguments of Foucault and critical pedagogy. Furthermore, punishing students in improper ways or corporal punishment are a violation of human rights according to the ideals of humanistic education. In addition, influenced by the tradition of Confucianism, political absolutism and the competitive educational environment, the authority of teachers is usually misused in Taiwan. The contents of professional discourses on education are misinterpreted by some teachers and have even become the theoretical base for corporal punishment. Therefore, the ethics of caring and alternative education are offered to replace punishment for teachers in the article. Through twice dialectical analysis, it concludes that punishment is not essential to discipline; some judgments about punishment may have a refutation, but still need more discussion.“ Altruistic motivation, proper means and occasions, satisfying consequences” are the three conditions essential to punishment according to teachers’ professional ethics.