本文關(guān)鍵詞： 道德 流變性 法律 獨(dú)立性 功利主義 實(shí)證主義　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2009年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】： 稍加思考,我們就可以發(fā)現(xiàn)道德生活并非“天不變,道亦不變”、恒守既往。道德形式在那相對平靜的表面下洶涌激流。然而,道德變化是以何方式進(jìn)行?內(nèi)動力如何?有無規(guī)律可循?是趨向于光明、善良,還是趨向于邪惡、雜亂無序還是兩者之間的徘徊?道德的流變性對于人們特別是對于法律人而言有何啟發(fā)和警醒?這些問題不僅是倫理學(xué)家應(yīng)當(dāng)關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn),同樣法律人也應(yīng)當(dāng)給予相同的熱情,從而為法律人理解法律與道德關(guān)系打開倫理學(xué)之門。 本文共分三個部分討論法律與道德的關(guān)系。 第一部分主要討論了道德的流變性問題。我們認(rèn)為:道德是社會制定或認(rèn)可的關(guān)于人們具有社會效用(亦即利害人己)的行為應(yīng)該而非必須如何的非權(quán)力規(guī)范。 深入分析可以得出道德流變的三大原因:一、社會:道德規(guī)范的制定或認(rèn)可主體處于變化之中,二、輿論:其易變性和可控性,決定了道德的流變性。三、經(jīng)濟(jì):道德與經(jīng)濟(jì)存在著“二反背律”現(xiàn)象。 分析道德的流變,進(jìn)而得出道德的善惡具有相對性。從功利的角度來說,人們總是認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)拋棄不利的事物也就是惡的事物,而應(yīng)當(dāng)接受對人們更有利的事物,也就是善的事物。也就是說,道德的流變,也就是表現(xiàn)為人們對其所認(rèn)為的惡德的拋棄,而對于其所謂的善德的接受。 第二部分主要針對第一部分得出的善德與惡德的區(qū)分,分析善與惡的相關(guān)理論,即從善與惡的概念分析、善與惡的評判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、善德與惡德的人性角度分析等方面進(jìn)行論述。探討上述問題的目的在于明晰道德本身是一種善還是惡,即對道德本身作出價值判斷,從而得出道德可能是一種必要的惡:道德就其自身而言,不過是對人的某些欲望和自由的限制、壓抑和侵犯,因而是一種惡;就其結(jié)果和目的來說,卻能防止更大的惡(如社會喪失基本秩序)和求得更大的善(如社會的有序發(fā)展),因而是凈余額為善的惡,是必要的惡。同時,道德可能也是一種純粹的惡:道德本身是一種惡已經(jīng)非常明確,無須再言。但同時,如果一種道德的目的并不能防止更大的惡或者求得更大的幸福,那么這種道德就是一種純粹的惡。另外,通過人性的分析,人性為惡,決定了道德本身必為惡。所以,通過立場的分析和抉擇,從功利的角度來說,道德只能是手段而不是目的。這個結(jié)論為法律與道德的關(guān)系解決了第一個問題:道德本身不是終極目標(biāo),人的利益和幸福才是一切社會制度的終極目標(biāo)。 第三部分,開始討論法律與道德關(guān)系。本部分主要解決第二個問題:法的效力是不是來源于道德?即:法律的目的直接是終極目標(biāo),還是通過道德從而間接達(dá)到終極目標(biāo)?本部分從法律與道德目的的同一性、法律不是最低限度的道德等角度探討了法律的獨(dú)立性,進(jìn)而為法律應(yīng)當(dāng)寬容惡德做好鋪墊。最后,本部分從法治、司法獨(dú)立和權(quán)力制約三個角度論述了法律獨(dú)立于道德的必要性和意義。
[Abstract]:A little thought, we can find the moral life is not "the same day, the Dow has not changed, to keep the past. Form of morality in the relatively calm the raging rapids under the surface. However, what is the way of moral change? Power? There is no regularity? Tend to be bright, kind, or trend in evil, wandering between out of order or both? What is the rheology of moral enlightenment and warning for the legal person for people especially? These questions are not only the focus of attention should ethicists, the same legal person shall be given the same enthusiasm, thus opening the door for legal ethics people understand the law and morality.
This article is divided into three parts to discuss the relationship between law and morality.
The first part mainly discusses the problem of the rheology of morality. We believe that morality is a non power norm which is formulated or approved by the society about the behavior of people who have social utility, that is, the interests of others.
In depth analysis, we can get three reasons for moral change: first, society: the formulation or accreditation of moral norms is changing; two, public opinion: its variability and controllability determine the rheology of morality. Three, economy: there is a phenomenon of "two reverse rules" in morality and economy.
The obtained rheological analysis of moral, moral good and evil is relative. From a utilitarian point of view, people always think that we should abandon the negative things that evil things, and shall be subject to people more favorable things, is also the good things. That is to say, the moral evolution, which shows people abandon to think evil, and to accept the so-called virtue.
The second part mainly for the first part of the distinction between virtue and evil, the relevant theoretical analysis of good and evil, that is from the concept analysis of good and evil, good and evil judgment standard, good and evil of human nature view De De analysis aspects. The discussion of the above issues in order to clarify the moral itself is a kind of good or evil, that is to judge the morality itself, so that morality may be a necessary evil: moral itself, but to some people desire and the restriction of freedom, oppression and aggression, which is a kind of evil; its result and purpose, can prevent the greater evil (such as the loss of social order) and obtain greater good (such as the orderly development of the society, so it is good) net balance of evil is a necessary evil. At the same time, may also be a purely moral evil: morality is a kind of evil has been very clear, no I say. But at the same time, if a moral purpose does not prevent a greater evil or get more happiness, then the moral is a kind of pure evil. In addition, through the analysis of human nature, human nature is evil, evil will determine the morality itself. Therefore, through the analysis and choice of position. From a utilitarian point of view, morality is only a means to an end. This conclusion solved the first problem is the relationship between law and morality, morality itself is not the ultimate goal, the interests of the people and the happiness is the ultimate goal of all of the social system.
The third part begins with a discussion of the relationship between law and morality. This part mainly solves second problems: the effect of law is not derived from morality?: the purpose of the law directly or through morality is the ultimate goal, and thus indirectly to achieve the ultimate goal? This part from the legal and moral purpose of identity, the law is not the minimum the moral aspects of independence of law, and the law should tolerate evil pave the way. Finally, this part of the rule of law, judicial independence and restriction of power from three aspects: legal independent moral necessity and significance.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2009
【分類號】：D90-05

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 O.W.霍姆斯,許章潤;法律之道[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2001年03期

，

本文編號：1498766