滑坡论及其在法律推理中的应用

Slippery Slope Arguments and Their Application to Legal Reasoning

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

石现明

导师:

卢景德

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

摘要:

滑坡论是作者从西方国家引进的一个哲学和逻辑学概念。作为一种辩证推理方法,滑坡论在国外已经引起了人们的极大兴趣和重视,被越来越多地应用于法律推理之中。相信随着我国法治建设的不断推进和法律推理地位的提高,滑坡论将会在我们的法律推理中发挥出应用的作用。 文章共分以下几个主要部分: 引言部分:作者从两个实例分析出发,指出在我国的立法和司法实践中利用了或可以利用滑坡论进行推理和论证。在此基础上简要地介绍了国外研究和应用滑坡论的基本情况。 第一部分:此部分主要论述了关于滑坡论的基本理论。首先,作者给滑坡论下了一个粗略的定义:滑坡论是这样一种推理或论证——我们今天应当抵制(或支持)某种行为或决定,因为支持(或抵制)该行为或决定可能导致我们今后支持(或抵制)其它明显应当抵制(或支持)的行为或决定。然后,分析了滑坡论的基本构成要素,指出任何一个滑坡论都是建立在“彼此联系,差异递增的事例构成一个斜坡”和“斜坡上没有合理的停止点”之上的,同时滑坡论还须不明确指出考虑之中的行为本身并不令人反对。最后,作者进一步分析了滑坡论的不同类型,指出合理根据滑坡论强调允许某种行为将会使我们丧失反对应予反对的行为的合理根据,而经验滑坡论则对允许某种行为将会产生什么样的不良后果作出预测。 第二部分:此部分主要论述了我们应当如何正确认识和评价滑坡论。首先,作者分析指出滑坡论有着其唯物辩证法的哲学基础——质、量、度的关系及质变量变的辩证关系,强调滑坡论在本质上并非谬误。然后作者分析论证了滑坡论的逻辑性质,指出由滑坡论推理得出的结论在逻辑上的或然性,并进一步分析了影响其论证力的因素,如使用场境、滑坡的可能性、结果的令人反对性、支持A的理由以及人们的价值观念和意识形态等。 第三部分:此部分论述了滑坡论在法律推理中的应用和作用。首先作者分析了合理根据滑坡论在立法推理中的作用,指出运用滑坡论进行推理论证将有助于促进立法的公正性,保证法律体系的统一和法律的统一贯彻实施,使立法更科学、更具操作性,提高立法水平和质量。其次,作者在分析司法实践中导致滑坡的诸多因素,如判例和族相、模糊法律概念、心理和社会因素等的基础上,强调指出经验滑坡论能为法院和法官提供抵制某种行为或政策的理由,并影响法官制作判决书的方式。 结论部分:作者得出结论认为,虽然滑坡论推理的结论在逻缉上是或 然的,但滑坡论本质上并非谬误,在法律推理中能够起到有效的作用。

学科:

法学理论

提交日期

2018-01-11

引用参考

石现明. 滑坡论及其在法律推理中的应用[D]. 西南政法大学,2002.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 滑坡论及其在法律推理中的应用
  • dc.title
  • Slippery Slope Arguments and Their Application to Legal Reasoning
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 1999158
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 石现明
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2002
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 卢景德
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 滑坡论是作者从西方国家引进的一个哲学和逻辑学概念。作为一种辩证推理方法,滑坡论在国外已经引起了人们的极大兴趣和重视,被越来越多地应用于法律推理之中。相信随着我国法治建设的不断推进和法律推理地位的提高,滑坡论将会在我们的法律推理中发挥出应用的作用。 文章共分以下几个主要部分: 引言部分:作者从两个实例分析出发,指出在我国的立法和司法实践中利用了或可以利用滑坡论进行推理和论证。在此基础上简要地介绍了国外研究和应用滑坡论的基本情况。 第一部分:此部分主要论述了关于滑坡论的基本理论。首先,作者给滑坡论下了一个粗略的定义:滑坡论是这样一种推理或论证——我们今天应当抵制(或支持)某种行为或决定,因为支持(或抵制)该行为或决定可能导致我们今后支持(或抵制)其它明显应当抵制(或支持)的行为或决定。然后,分析了滑坡论的基本构成要素,指出任何一个滑坡论都是建立在“彼此联系,差异递增的事例构成一个斜坡”和“斜坡上没有合理的停止点”之上的,同时滑坡论还须不明确指出考虑之中的行为本身并不令人反对。最后,作者进一步分析了滑坡论的不同类型,指出合理根据滑坡论强调允许某种行为将会使我们丧失反对应予反对的行为的合理根据,而经验滑坡论则对允许某种行为将会产生什么样的不良后果作出预测。 第二部分:此部分主要论述了我们应当如何正确认识和评价滑坡论。首先,作者分析指出滑坡论有着其唯物辩证法的哲学基础——质、量、度的关系及质变量变的辩证关系,强调滑坡论在本质上并非谬误。然后作者分析论证了滑坡论的逻辑性质,指出由滑坡论推理得出的结论在逻辑上的或然性,并进一步分析了影响其论证力的因素,如使用场境、滑坡的可能性、结果的令人反对性、支持A的理由以及人们的价值观念和意识形态等。 第三部分:此部分论述了滑坡论在法律推理中的应用和作用。首先作者分析了合理根据滑坡论在立法推理中的作用,指出运用滑坡论进行推理论证将有助于促进立法的公正性,保证法律体系的统一和法律的统一贯彻实施,使立法更科学、更具操作性,提高立法水平和质量。其次,作者在分析司法实践中导致滑坡的诸多因素,如判例和族相、模糊法律概念、心理和社会因素等的基础上,强调指出经验滑坡论能为法院和法官提供抵制某种行为或政策的理由,并影响法官制作判决书的方式。 结论部分:作者得出结论认为,虽然滑坡论推理的结论在逻缉上是或 然的,但滑坡论本质上并非谬误,在法律推理中能够起到有效的作用。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Slippery slope arguments (hereafter referred as SSAs) is a phiosophica.l and logic term introduced from the West by the author. As a dialect ical reasoning method, SSAs have at traded many scholars' intcrest and attention abroad and are applied to legal reasoning more and more.The author believes that SSAs will take their due place in our legal reasoning as our legal construction proceeds futherly and more and more attentions are paid to legal reasoning. The thesis consists of the following main parts. Introductory part. On analyzing two real examples, the author points out that SSAs have been and can be used in our legislative and judiciary practices. After that, the author makes a brief introduction on the study and application of SSAs abroad. Part I. The author discusses mainly the basic knowledge of SSAs. Firstly, the author gives a rough definition of SSAs. SSAs are this kind of argament or reasoning: We should resist (or allow) a certain practice or policy on the ground that allowing (or resisting) such practice or policy is likely to lead to allowing (or resisting) other practice or policy which we must resist (or allow). Then, the author analyzes the basic constituents of SSAs, pointing out that every SSA is based upon that intervening and gradual cases (steps) make up a slope and that on the slope there lacks reasonable stop place. Furthermore, in SSAS, We must implicitly concede that the case under consideration itself is not objectional. Finally, the author differentiates between different sorts of SSAs, suggesting that Rational Grounds SSAs emphasize that allowing a certain action will finally cause us to lose the grounds for resisting other objectional actions whereas Empirical SSAs predict the horrible consequences caused by allowing a certain action. Part II. This part, centres on how to recognize and evaluate SSAs correctly. On one hand, the author emphasizes that SSAs are not intrinsically fallacious since they are built on the materialist dialectic of the relation among quality, quantity and degree and the dialectical relationship between quantitative changes and qualitative changes. On the other hand , the auther points out that the conclusion from SSAs is not always logically effective on the basis of logic inference, analysizes the factors which influence the strength of SSAs, including the context where they are to be invoked, the likdihood of sliding down the slope, the objectionability of the consequences, the reasons to allow A and ideological differences. Part III. This part concentrates on SSAs' application to and roles in legal reasoning. Firstly, the author analyzes the roles of rational grounds SSAs in legislative reasoning and points out they are conducive to promoting the fairness of legislation, ensuring the unification of the legal system and the uniform implementation of law, making the legislation more scientific and operational, upgrading the level and quality of our legislation. Secondly, the author analyzes the many factors, such as precedents and continuums, vague and indeterminate legal terms, psycological considerations and social factors, which are especial ly conducive to s 1 id ing down s lopes in judiciary fields, thus, emphasizes that SSAs can provide courts and judges sufficient reasons to resist a certain action or policy as well as influence the ways by which judges make their decisions. Conclusion. The auther concludes that SSAs are not intrin-sincally fallacious and can play effective roles in legal reasoning, though their inferrence is not logically effective.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D90-051
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2002-04-01
回到顶部