論法律理性的邏輯基礎(chǔ)轉(zhuǎn)換
發(fā)布時間：2018-10-12 20:17
【摘要】：如何彰顯法的理性一直是法學理論研究的重要課題,對于這個問題不同的時期有不同的回答。在法治奠基的近代,占據(jù)主流地位的實證主義法學給出的答案是追求法的形式理性,認為只要保證了法律推理的形式有效性,也就保證了唯一正確答案的實現(xiàn),因此將研究的重心放在對法律概念和法的內(nèi)部邏輯結(jié)構(gòu)的研究上。從霍姆斯開始,法律實用主義強調(diào)法律與社會利益不可割舍的聯(lián)系，，主張法律判決的產(chǎn)生是經(jīng)濟、社會、文化、心理等多種因素共同作用的產(chǎn)物,形式主義的企圖過于天真。實用主義發(fā)展到波斯納,更是否定了法律的科學性和客觀性,徹底將法律的理性和自主性瓦解殆盡,法治而臨著嚴重的理性危機。法律論證理論為在司法中重構(gòu)法的理性進行了有益的嘗試,立足于當代哲學的語言學轉(zhuǎn)向和實踐理性的回歸,法律論證放棄了對形式理性的追求,強調(diào)論證的對話性和辯證性。對法的理性的追求由形式理性過渡到辯證理性。在從形式理性到辯證理性過渡的過程中,形式主義的三段論的邏輯基礎(chǔ)不再適用,而新的邏輯基礎(chǔ)尚未確立,法律理性的實現(xiàn)需要新的邏輯基礎(chǔ)作支撐。新的邏輯基礎(chǔ)既要能夠保證推理的形式有效性又要能夠處理形式外的實質(zhì)因素。這樣的邏輯基礎(chǔ)在傳統(tǒng)的邏輯觀念下是找不到的,因此我們應(yīng)該轉(zhuǎn)變固有的邏輯觀念。邏輯可修正理論為我們轉(zhuǎn)變邏輯觀念提供了理論上的支持。邏輯可修正理論告訴我們,一個邏輯系統(tǒng)存在潛在的被修正的可能性,邏輯學科的范圍也在不斷的變化。因此在為法的理性確定新的邏輯基礎(chǔ)時不應(yīng)該固守傳統(tǒng),隨時準備改變自己關(guān)于“什么是邏輯”“邏輯對與錯”的觀念,跳出現(xiàn)有的邏輯框架的束縛。在形式邏輯的框架外,我們可以發(fā)現(xiàn)近年來蓬勃興起的非形式邏輯理論是一個很好的選擇,在實現(xiàn)法的理性方面可以提供很大的幫助。以邏輯的實踐轉(zhuǎn)向為背景的非形式邏輯自誕生之日起就一直以日常語言論證為研究對象,主張論證的語用性和辯證性,強調(diào)正當論辯程序和論辯權(quán)利行使的重要性,以允分性和可接受性取代了以往的形式有效性標準。這些都與法律論證理論有著高度的契合。同時,作為日常語言論證的范例,法律論辯實踐也一直是非形式邏輯研究的范例。非形式邏輯在從法律論證領(lǐng)域獲得素材的同時,也能夠為法律論證提供新的思維和方法上的支持。二者之間天然的聯(lián)系為非形式邏輯作為法律論證的邏輯基礎(chǔ),幫助其實現(xiàn)法的理性提供了可能性和可行性
[Abstract]:How to reveal the rationality of law has always been an important subject in the study of legal theory, and there are different answers to this question in different periods. In modern times when the foundation of the rule of law is laid, the answer given by positivist jurisprudence, which occupies the mainstream position, is the pursuit of formal rationality of law. It is believed that as long as the formal validity of legal reasoning is guaranteed, the realization of the only correct answer can be guaranteed. Therefore, the focus of the study is on the concept of law and the internal logical structure of law. From Holmes on, legal pragmatism emphasizes the connection between law and social interests, and claims that the production of legal judgment is the product of economic, social, cultural, psychological and other factors, and the attempt of formalism is too naive. The development of pragmatism to Posner negates the scientific and objective nature of the law, completely disintegrates the rationality and autonomy of the law, and the rule of law is facing a serious rational crisis. The theory of legal argumentation has made a beneficial attempt to reconstruct the rationality of law in judicature. Based on the linguistic turn of contemporary philosophy and the return of practical reason, legal argumentation has abandoned the pursuit of formal rationality and emphasized the dialogue and dialectics of argumentation. The pursuit of rationality of law is from formal rationality to dialectical rationality. In the process of transition from formal rationality to dialectical reason, the logical basis of formalism is no longer applicable, but the new logical basis has not been established, and the realization of legal rationality needs new logical basis. The new logical basis can not only guarantee the formal validity of reasoning, but also deal with substantive factors outside form. This kind of logic foundation can not be found under the traditional logic idea, so we should change the inherent logic idea. The theory of logical modifiability provides theoretical support for us to change the concept of logic. Logic modifiability theory tells us that a logic system has the potential to be modified, and the scope of logic discipline is constantly changing. Therefore, we should not stick to the tradition and be ready to change our own concept of "what is logic" and "logic right and wrong" when we determine the new logical basis for the rationality of law, and jump out of the shackles of the existing logical framework. Outside the framework of formal logic, we can find that the theory of informal logic, which has flourished in recent years, is a good choice and can be of great help in the rational aspect of realizing law. The non-formal logic with the background of the practice turn of logic has been taking everyday language argumentation as the research object since its birth. It advocates the pragmatics and dialectics of argumentation, and emphasizes the importance of proper argumentation procedure and the exercise of argumentation right. Acceptance and acceptability replaced the previous formal validity criteria. All these agree with the theory of legal argumentation. At the same time, as an example of daily language argumentation, the practice of legal argumentation has always been an example of the study of non-formal logic. While obtaining material from the field of legal argumentation, informal logic can also provide new thinking and method support for legal argumentation. The natural connection between the two provides the possibility and feasibility for the non-formal logic as the logical basis of legal argumentation and helps to realize the rationality of the law.
【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D90-051
本文編號：2267465
[Abstract]:How to reveal the rationality of law has always been an important subject in the study of legal theory, and there are different answers to this question in different periods. In modern times when the foundation of the rule of law is laid, the answer given by positivist jurisprudence, which occupies the mainstream position, is the pursuit of formal rationality of law. It is believed that as long as the formal validity of legal reasoning is guaranteed, the realization of the only correct answer can be guaranteed. Therefore, the focus of the study is on the concept of law and the internal logical structure of law. From Holmes on, legal pragmatism emphasizes the connection between law and social interests, and claims that the production of legal judgment is the product of economic, social, cultural, psychological and other factors, and the attempt of formalism is too naive. The development of pragmatism to Posner negates the scientific and objective nature of the law, completely disintegrates the rationality and autonomy of the law, and the rule of law is facing a serious rational crisis. The theory of legal argumentation has made a beneficial attempt to reconstruct the rationality of law in judicature. Based on the linguistic turn of contemporary philosophy and the return of practical reason, legal argumentation has abandoned the pursuit of formal rationality and emphasized the dialogue and dialectics of argumentation. The pursuit of rationality of law is from formal rationality to dialectical rationality. In the process of transition from formal rationality to dialectical reason, the logical basis of formalism is no longer applicable, but the new logical basis has not been established, and the realization of legal rationality needs new logical basis. The new logical basis can not only guarantee the formal validity of reasoning, but also deal with substantive factors outside form. This kind of logic foundation can not be found under the traditional logic idea, so we should change the inherent logic idea. The theory of logical modifiability provides theoretical support for us to change the concept of logic. Logic modifiability theory tells us that a logic system has the potential to be modified, and the scope of logic discipline is constantly changing. Therefore, we should not stick to the tradition and be ready to change our own concept of "what is logic" and "logic right and wrong" when we determine the new logical basis for the rationality of law, and jump out of the shackles of the existing logical framework. Outside the framework of formal logic, we can find that the theory of informal logic, which has flourished in recent years, is a good choice and can be of great help in the rational aspect of realizing law. The non-formal logic with the background of the practice turn of logic has been taking everyday language argumentation as the research object since its birth. It advocates the pragmatics and dialectics of argumentation, and emphasizes the importance of proper argumentation procedure and the exercise of argumentation right. Acceptance and acceptability replaced the previous formal validity criteria. All these agree with the theory of legal argumentation. At the same time, as an example of daily language argumentation, the practice of legal argumentation has always been an example of the study of non-formal logic. While obtaining material from the field of legal argumentation, informal logic can also provide new thinking and method support for legal argumentation. The natural connection between the two provides the possibility and feasibility for the non-formal logic as the logical basis of legal argumentation and helps to realize the rationality of the law.
【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D90-051
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條
1 黃金榮;法的形式理性論——以法之確定性問題為中心[J];比較法研究;2000年03期
2 王晨光;;韋伯的法律社會學思想[J];中外法學;1992年03期
3 徐愛國;霍姆斯《法律的道路》詮釋[J];中外法學;1997年04期
4 王路;論奎因關(guān)于分析和綜合的論述[J];自然辯證法通訊;1998年05期
5 魏燕俠;;“邏輯”的四重根——評“邏輯可修正論”[J];哲學動態(tài);2010年02期
6 陳波;;“邏輯的可修正性”再思考[J];哲學研究;2008年08期
本文編號：2267465
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/fashilw/2267465.html
