查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 法律的生命樂章--紀念楊日然老師=The Symphony of Law's Life in Memory of Professor Yang Zu-zan |
---|---|
作者 | 莊世同; Chuang, Shih-tung; |
期刊 | 東吳法律學報 |
出版日期 | 20041200 |
卷期 | 16:2 2004.12[民93.12] |
頁次 | 頁1-44 |
分類號 | 580.1 |
語文 | chi |
關鍵詞 | 楊日然; 邏輯經驗主義; 經驗法學; 分析法實證主義; 二元論; 價值相對主義; 實用主義; 信仰; Yang Zu-zan; Logical empiricism; Empirical jurisprudence; Analytical legal positivism; Dualism; Value relativism; Pragmatism; Faith; |
中文摘要 | 「生命雖然短暫,貢獻卻可永恆」。這是司法院院長翁岳生,為了紀念楊日然,所寫下的感人話語。這句話,無疑是楊日然一生最佳的寫照,同時也是激發本文的泉源所在。基於對楊日然的尊敬與感念,本文包含了以下兩條論述主軸。 第一,回顧與考察楊日然法理學思想的核心主張。我分別從哲學認識論、法概念論、法價值論、以及法解釋論的理論面向,逐一探討他的思想基礎,並且進而主張,他是站在邏輯經驗主義的認識論立場上,發展其分析法實證主義、價值相對主義、與實用主義法解釋理論的思想。 第二,檢討與反省楊日然法理學思想的理論妥當性。由於邏輯經驗主義支持事實與價值、實然與應然截然二分的二元論思維,所以,楊日然也是此一立論的支持者。然而,藉由檢討哲學上一元論與二元論的理論爭執,我將進一步指出,雙方之間的衝突,乃是不同信念與信仰之間的衝突。換言之,即使自詞為對事物可做客觀理論認識的二元論思想,也無法自外於認識者對自己與外在物理、人文世界間的互動關係,所抱持的某種目的論詮釋觀點。因此,事實與價值、實然與應然,是不可能可以截然劃分的。而法律的生命,也非如Holmes所言,是來自於經驗。法律的生命,毋寧是來自法律人對於法治的信仰。 |
英文摘要 | ‘Life is mortal, but contribution could be immortal.’ These touching words-written by Weng Yueh-sheng, President of the Judicial Yuan, to commemorate his best friend Yang Zu-zan-are not only the best epitome of Yang's whole life but also the source that inspires the present essay. Based on my sincere respect for Yang, this essay consists the following two lines of discourse. The first discourse is to review the core arguments of Yang's jurisprudence. From the theoretical perspectives of epistemology, the concept of law, the value of law, and the interpretation of law, I argue that Yang stands on the position of logical empiricism to develop his analytical legal positivism, value relativism, and pragmatic theory of legal interpretation. The second discourse is a critical reflection on the coherence of Yang's jurisprudence. Since logical empiricism maintains the philosophical dualism that severely distinguishes fact from value and ‘is’ from “ought’, Yang is without doubt in defense of this position. Nevertheless, by reviewing the debate between monism and dualism, I argue that the conflict between them is in fact a conflict between different faiths. In other words, although dualism claims that the objective understanding of an object is theoretically possible, it is in my view impossible for it to be free from some purposive interpretation that the interpreter takes as her vision about the interaction between herself and the physical as well as human worlds. For this reason, fact and value, ‘is’ and ‘ought’ cannot be severely separated. And, the life of law is not as Holmes says a matter of experience, but a matter of our faith to the Rule of Law. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。