規劃具有道德爭議的公共政策，已經成為當代政府眼中最棘手的難題之一。一 旦談到道德政策，便可在網路上找到各式各樣個人的主觀論述，然而，因少有調查 這些道德政策的動機之量化研究，常使得雙方帶領意見支持者各執一詞，即便主流 量化研究試著進行分析，因為方法論的侷限，無法了解不同觀點民眾其背後的論述 結構，因而常忽略了少數民意中值得參考的意見，落入「多數暴力」的民主困境。 這個量化動機研究的縫隙，就成為Q 方法得以填補連結之處，本研究將以同伴 動物保護政策作為案例，了解Q 方法可能對於道德爭議產生的貢獻，一方面，本研究透過Q 方法，凝聚我國同伴動物保護政策的共識，另方面，經由Q 方法與其他 研究途徑相互比較，本研究提出道德政策研究者在選擇研究途徑時的可行建議。

It becomes the most difficulty mission foRmodern government to plan the public policy with moral dispute. Once we talked about morality policy, we always can find variety individual subjective discourse. However, due to lacking in quantity research about these morality policies, the two parties always argued with the counterpart. Even some researchers in mainstream tries to analysis the question, due to methodological shortage, they still can’t figure out the discourse structures in different person, so they often neglect perspectives worth reference in minority public opinion. The gap become a point Qmethodology could link. In ouRarticle, we will take companion animal protection policy foRa example to understand Qmethodology could contribute in moral dispute. On the one hand, ouRarticle will condense the consensus about companion animal protection policy in ouRcountry. On the otheRhand, through comparing Qmethodology with otheRresearch approaches, we carry out feasible recommendations foRresearchers to choose research approach when facing morality policy.