论文部分内容阅读
在本文中,我将提出这样一个观点:当法律被看作是修辞学的一个分支,而不是像大学教师和哲学家们那样通常视法律为一种规则体系时,法律才至为有用;当包含法律属类的这种修辞学被看作是社群和文化赖以建立、维持和转化的核心艺术,而不是像通常那样被视为一种衰亡的科学或是一种不光彩的说服艺术时,这种修辞学才至为有用。如此看来,修辞本与法律共存续,二者都视正义为其最终目的。我的意思并非是说只有这些才是理解法律或修辞的方式。世界上总会有地方研究制度或政策,研究不同种类的说服策略,分析数据模型及分配效应。但是我想如果人们承认这样一些活动也属于修辞范畴的话,则所有这些活动自身的开展及所获得的批评都将变得更加易于理解。至于法律和修辞本身,我认为用如上建议的方式去看待它们,即用一种更加接近于完整的方式,尤其是从说话人个人、听话人个人和法官个人的视角出发去理解它们。
In this article, I will make the point that law is only useful when it is viewed as a branch of rhetoric rather than as a system of rules, as is often the case for university teachers and philosophers; This rhetoric, which includes the genus of law, is seen as the core art by which the community and culture rely on establishing, sustaining, and transforming, rather than being perceived as a decaying science or an obscene art of persuasion This rhetoric is only useful when it comes to it. In this sense, rhetoric and law coexist, both of which regard justice as their ultimate goal. My point is not to say that only these are ways of understanding law or rhetoric. There are always places in the world to study systems or policies, to study different types of persuasion strategies, to analyze data models and distributional effects. But I think that if one accepts that such activities fall under the category of rhetoric, then the development of all these activities and the criticisms that they receive will all become easier to understand. As for the law and the rhetoric itself, I consider them to be viewed in the same manner as suggested above, namely, to understand them in a more nearly complete way, especially from the perspective of the speaker individual, the individual listener and the judge individual.