頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 法律倫理作為角色倫理?=Legal Ethics as Role Morality? |
---|---|
作 者 | 高思博; | 書刊名 | 世新法學 |
卷 期 | 7:1 2013.12[民102.12] |
頁 次 | 頁67-89 |
專 輯 | 「現代法學專業倫理的課題研討會」專刊 |
分類號 | 580.1619 |
關鍵詞 | 法律倫理; 角色倫理; 臺灣法律專業人士; Legal ethics; Role morality; Legal profession in Taiwan; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 「法律倫理」一般所指涉的是「法律專業人士」的倫理規則。上述的「法律專業人士」普遍由四種上同,但相互依存的職業,也就是,法官、檢察官、律師和法律學者所組成。因此,典型的「法律倫理」課程或教材,通常從這四種法律從業者在整個法律體系及社會中的角色和職能,嘗試去解釋其倫理規則背後共通之原理原則。換句話說,我們教導及實踐「法律倫理」也同時合理化它作為一種「角色倫理」。然而,除了其專業訓練和這四者在法律專業活動中的功能性社會分工這兩點,而社會中其它「非專業」的職業也一樣具備,到底是什麼額外的特質使這四項法律工作具有獨特的自我認知和行為,而讓他們成為「專業」? 本文中我首先提到,確實有一些獨特的特質構成他們的專業「召喚」。俗話說法律從業者是法律的守護者,這並非僅是口惠之語,而是真正值得認真看待之事。如果這種說法具有說朊力,其次,我提出在法律專業的「高尚召喚」與其實踐工具:「角色倫理」之間,持續存在一個「概念落差」,即角色倫理所面臨源自「理論和實踐」的問題。這種落差亦是我們所遇到的一些典型的法律倫理難題的來源。最後,我想指出,在台灣有兩個可觀察到的趨勢,於上久的將來可能使上述的「概念落差」持續擴大。 |
英文摘要 | The field of legal ethics is commonly referred to the ethical rules of legal profession currently in practice. The legal profession is generally deemed to be composed of four distinct but interdependent jobs which all make their livings out of law, that is, judges, prosecutors, lawyers and legal scholars. Therefore a typical course or textbook of legal ethics usually proceeds from the ethical rules of these four law jobs and try to explain away the underlying reason of the ethical rules by appealing to the roles and functions of these four jobs vis-à-vis the legal system and the society as a whole. In other words, we teach and practice legal ethics as a kind of role morality and also justify it accordingly. However, besides their professional training and functional division of labors in their professional activities, which are also common to other vocations not self-defined as professions in society, what are additionally unique qualities of their self-understanding and activities that distinguish these four law jobs from other vocations and make themselves under a “profession”? I will argue in this paper first that there are indeed some unique qualities which constitute a “calling” of a profession. The common saying of the legal profession as the guardian of rule of law is not simply lip service but really deserves to be taken seriously. Granting this argument to be persuasive, however, my second point is just to point out there will be a persistent conceptual gap between the high-minded calling and its instrumentality, the role morality, resulting from the nature of the problem of “theory and practice”. This gap is the source of some of the typical hard cases we encounter in legal ethics. Finally I would like to point to two observable trends in Taiwan which may widen this gap in the near future. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。