论文部分内容阅读
后果主义论证是一种实用主义司法哲学,主张通过预测判决可能产生的某种后果来检校判决的妥当性与可接受性的一种论证进路。在当下一些影响性案件的审理中已经隐藏着后果主义论证思路。后果主义论证的证成需要遵循三个条件:法官凭法感觉或者社会反响来感悟后果主义论证是否必要;可能产生的系统性后果是启动后果主义论证的基础性理由;合法性前提是后果主义论证的合法性保障。后果主义论证并非是完美的终局性论证方法,但它对于解决当下影响性案件中出现的合法性与合理性冲突提供了一种新的论证进路与方法。
Consequentialist argument is a pragmatic philosophy of justice, arguing that by predicting the possible consequences of the verdict to determine the validity and acceptability of the verdict approach. In the current trial of some influential cases has hidden the idea of post-crisis argument. There are three conditions to be followed in the justification of the consequence doctrine: the judge perceives the necessity doctrine as justification or social repercussion; the possible systemic consequence is the basic reason for initiating the consequence doctrine; the premise of legitimacy is the consequence doctrine The legitimacy of protection. Consequentialist argumentation is not the perfect method of final argumentation, but it provides a new approach and method to resolve the conflict between legitimacy and rationality in the current influential cases.