本文關(guān)鍵詞： 司法三段論 法律論證 修辭論證 聽(tīng)眾理論　出處：《山東大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：司法三段論以形式邏輯為基礎(chǔ),從既存的法律規(guī)范出發(fā),將案件事實(shí)抽象為法律事實(shí),以人工語(yǔ)言為載體,要求大小前提具備同一性,以盡可能避免價(jià)值判斷對(duì)于司法判斷的影響,以限制和消除法官的恣意,從而保障司法判斷的客觀性和準(zhǔn)確性。但是,這種觀點(diǎn)是可以質(zhì)疑的：針對(duì)同一案例,大前提即法律規(guī)范存在競(jìng)合的情形,法官對(duì)于規(guī)范的選擇是否有價(jià)值判斷的涉入?法律事實(shí)如何能夠無(wú)限接近于客觀事實(shí)?訴諸權(quán)威的司法判斷能否得到社會(huì)公眾的普遍認(rèn)可,一項(xiàng)不被普遍接受的司法判斷怎樣保證其有效性? 在回答此類問(wèn)題的基礎(chǔ)上,論證相對(duì)于證明的優(yōu)勢(shì)凸顯,關(guān)于法律論證的理論逐漸趨于豐富。根據(jù)目前各國(guó)學(xué)者的研究成果,認(rèn)為法律論證的研究進(jìn)路主要有三種：邏輯學(xué)方法、修辭學(xué)方法和對(duì)話的方法。其中,關(guān)于修辭學(xué)方法在法律論證中的應(yīng)用以法學(xué)研究的語(yǔ)言學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)向?yàn)楸尘?以佩雷爾曼、圖爾敏為代表的學(xué)者重構(gòu)自中世紀(jì)沒(méi)落的古典修辭學(xué)傳統(tǒng),建立了一套自成體系的新修辭學(xué)理論。作為論證的方法之一,修辭強(qiáng)調(diào)結(jié)論的合理而非理性,要求重視論證的過(guò)程。佩雷爾曼的新修辭學(xué)學(xué)說(shuō)以聽(tīng)眾理論為核心,將共識(shí)作為論證的前提和起點(diǎn),并提出歸納總結(jié)出三種主要的修辭論證方法：準(zhǔn)邏輯論證、基于實(shí)在結(jié)構(gòu)的論證、建立實(shí)在結(jié)構(gòu)的論證。本文在對(duì)法律論證理論和西方修辭學(xué)特別是新修辭學(xué)理論作系統(tǒng)梳理的基礎(chǔ)上,著重討論了修辭與論證的“契合點(diǎn)”,重點(diǎn)介紹修辭論證的方法,從方法論的角度探討了修辭論證方法在法律論證中的可能性。 討論的過(guò)程除前言外,共分四個(gè)部分： 第一部分“從司法三段論到法律論證”：在承認(rèn)事實(shí)與規(guī)范二分的前提下,從價(jià)值無(wú)涉的角度,討論了司法三段論在司法實(shí)踐中的價(jià)值及局限性、法律論證的興起和功用,提出“證明”和“論證”應(yīng)該是二元對(duì)照的觀點(diǎn)。在司法實(shí)踐中,三段論是法官制作司法判決的主要思維方式,但同時(shí)對(duì)于涉及價(jià)值判斷的合理性進(jìn)行充分的論證,這種論證既是邏輯的也是修辭的、對(duì)話的。因此,我們?cè)噲D建構(gòu)的是一個(gè)開(kāi)放性的論證體系。 第二部分“修辭與論證的‘姻緣’”：一般認(rèn)為,修辭與邏輯、對(duì)話共同構(gòu)成論證的三種主要的論證手段,同時(shí)在方法論意義上也是論證理論的研究進(jìn)路。該部分首先討論了修辭論證的可能性,然后在梳理西方修辭學(xué)理論脈絡(luò)的基礎(chǔ)上,重點(diǎn)介紹了佩雷爾曼的新修辭學(xué)理論,包括聽(tīng)眾理論、共識(shí)觀和論證方法,這是本文的核心。 第三部分“修辭學(xué)對(duì)法律論證理論的意義和局限”：該部分著眼于宏大視角,重點(diǎn)論述了將修辭論證方法引入法律論證的積極意義,諸如擴(kuò)大了理性的邊界,包括保證法律解釋和司法判斷的合理性；為法律判斷中的價(jià)值判斷提供了方法等等。同時(shí),修辭論證作為一種理論性存在也必然有其自身的界限和不足,我們承認(rèn)修辭作為論證方法的可能性,但也不能因此回避修辭學(xué)理論理所面對(duì)的批判。 第四部分“關(guān)于修辭論證的前瞻性思考”：不論是西方形式主義的邏輯推理還是法律論證,在面向我國(guó)法律實(shí)踐之時(shí)都會(huì)面臨“本土化”的問(wèn)題。本部分著重討論修辭論證在我國(guó)法律實(shí)踐中的可能性問(wèn)題,以及修辭論證為我國(guó)現(xiàn)有司法制度帶來(lái)的新的思考維度,如共識(shí)觀與我國(guó)傳統(tǒng)司法倫理的契合、在媒介國(guó)家法和民間法之間的橋梁作用等。
[Abstract]:The judicial syllogism based on formal logic, starting from the existing legal standard, the facts of the case are abstracted as legal facts, using artificial language as the carrier, with the same size of the premise, to avoid as much as possible to influence the value judgment of judicial judgment, to restrict and eliminate the arbitrariness of the judge, so as to ensure the objectivity and accuracy of justice judgment. However, this view can be challenged: in the same case, the premise that legal norms are competing situation, judge whether there is involvement of value judgment in choosing the norm? How can the legal fact infinitely close to the objective fact? Appeal to the judicial authority to judge whether generally accepted by the public, how a universally accepted judicial judgment to ensure its effectiveness?
Based on answering these questions, highlighting the argument with respect to demonstrate the advantages of the legal argumentation theory tends to be rich. According to the current research results of scholars, think that there are three main approaches of legal argumentation: logic methods, methods and methods of rhetoric words. Among them, on the application of rhetoric methods in legal argumentation the consequences of turning as the background, by Perelman Toulmin, as the representative of the traditional classical rhetoric scholars reconstructed from the decline of the middle ages, establish a set of new rhetoric theory. As one of the demonstration methods, rhetoric emphasizes the rational and irrational, and stresses the process of negotiation. The new rhetoric theory Perelman's audience theory as the core, consensus as the premise and starting point of argumentation, and put forward three major rhetorical argument The quasi logical argument, argument structure is based on the establishment of a real structure demonstration. Based on the theory of legal argumentation and western rhetoric, especially the basic theory of new rhetoric systematically, discussed the "meeting point" rhetoric and argumentation, focuses on the method of rhetorical argument, from the perspective of methodology is discussed the possibility of rhetorical argumentation in legal argumentation.
In addition to the preface, the discussion is divided into four parts:
The first part "from judicial syllogism to legal argumentation": admitting the facts and norms of two points, from the perspective of value free, judicial syllogism in the judicial practice of the value and limitation are discussed, and the rise of function of legal argumentation, put forward the "proof" and "demonstration" should be two yuan control. In judicial practice, syllogism is the main thinking way of judge makes judicial decisions, but at the same time for the rationality of value judgment of the full argument, this argument is illogical and rhetoric and dialogue. Therefore, we try to construct an open argumentation system.
The second part "rhetoric and argumentation" marriage ": generally, rhetoric and logic, the three main means of demonstration dialogue together constitute the argument, and the methodology significance is the demonstration research approach on the theory. The first part discusses the possibility of rhetorical argument, and then on the basis of western rhetoric theory. And introduces the new rhetoric theory of Perelman, including the audience theory, consensus and reasoning, which is the core of this paper.
The third part "the value and limitations of rhetoric to the theory of legal argumentation": this part is from a macro perspective, discusses the significance of introducing the rhetorical argumentation into legal argumentation, such as expanding the rational boundary, including the guarantee of reasonable legal interpretation and judicial judgment; provides a method for value judgment of legal judgment etc. at the same time, rhetorical argumentation as a theoretical existence has its own boundaries and limitations, we acknowledge the possibility of rhetoric as a demonstration method, but also can not avoid criticism so rhetoric theories face.
The fourth part "forward-looking thinking about rhetoric argumentation": both Western formalistic logic reasoning and legal argumentation in the legal practice in our country will face the problem of "localization". This part focuses on the rhetorical argument in our legal practice of the problem, and to bring the rhetorical argument the existing judicial system of our country's new thinking dimension, such as consensus and fit the traditional judicial ethics in our country, in the media between state law and folk law's role as a bridge.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D90-055

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 鄧志勇;修辭三段論及其修辭運(yùn)作模式[J];外國(guó)語(yǔ)言文學(xué);2003年01期

2 陳金釗;;論法律事實(shí)[J];法學(xué)家;2000年02期

3 戴津偉;;修辭與近代法治理念[J];西部法學(xué)評(píng)論;2010年01期

4 蘇力;復(fù)仇與法律——以《趙氏孤兒》為例[J];法學(xué)研究;2005年01期

5 顧曰國(guó);西方古典修辭學(xué)和西方新修辭學(xué)[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究;1990年02期

6 吳大華;黃瑤;;試論刑事協(xié)商制度在我國(guó)的構(gòu)建[J];政法論叢;2008年05期

7 蘇力;解釋的難題:對(duì)幾種法律文本解釋方法的追問(wèn)[J];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué);1997年04期

8 蔡琳;;裁判合理性理論研究[J];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院學(xué)報(bào);2008年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 焦寶乾;法律論證理論研究[D];山東大學(xué);2005年

，

本文編號(hào)：1449791