责任本位主义——法哲学本位论的当代转向

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

马克思主义学院

作者:

魏剑

导师:

左开大

导师单位:

离退休工作处

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

......;......;......

摘要:

法哲学是从对人的终极关怀的高度对法律现象进行哲学思考而形成 的学科,法哲学以法律现象与法学研究的存在为基础,其研究重心或立足 点必然与法学研究重心或立足点是相同的,亦可统称为法的本位论。只不 过是研究方法与旨向更加形而上、更加终极罢了。 由于人的行为的深度和向度在不同时代或不同民族是不尽相同的,法 的本位在不同时代或不同的民族有着不同的内涵。法的存在形态经历了神 法宗教法、国家法、市民法、以及现在的宪政状态等,法哲学本位理论也 经历了宗教神、国家权力、权利等形态。当今人类的行为向度和深度都是 史无前例的,在现当代,特别是在后现代思潮冲击下,权利观念和义务观 念不能完全适应人类的行为向度和深度的需要,只有“责任”才可以胜任为 当今法的本位问题。 责任是一种基本的社会关系,是人在世状态的最为一般的标志,有行 为就必然生成责任,与人的行为完全对应。责任是行为的后果的评价,具 有价值蕴涵,而不是行为本身。“负责任”是指以行为来担当,因此“负责 任”是一种行为活动,我们不能混淆“责任”与“负责任”这两个概念,由“责 任”到“负责任”这是一个需要很多条件来成就的过程,要求责任主体的行 为能力、道德良心、行为动机、责任受体的存在与要求以及责任行为不可 抗力或责任行为的可赦免状态的不存在等等。责任关系包含权利关系、义 务关系以及非权利义务的“第三世界关系”,权利义务关系仅仅是人的行为 关系的表现之一,无法为涵盖人的全部价值范畴,必然为现代当法哲学本 位论所不取。同时,权利是“选择 行为”、义务是“应当 行为”的行为模式, 而责任是“行为 应当”的行为模式,既彰显了人的行为的积极状态,又保 证了行为后果的合理评价。 现当代法哲学本位理论研究顺应了后现代思潮,开始摆脱权利义务论 和科技统治的局限,开始对现代理性进行反思,责任伦理学浮出水面并将 日益成为未来社会理论研究的最一般伦理。我国处理非现代与现代、现代 与后现代的夹缝中,为了使我国法学研究少走弯路,对后现代思潮不应当 忽视,法学理论研究也必须超越权利义务理论的框架,将权利义务理论悬 置法的滞后性消解于积极的责任态度与行为中。 责任问题不能仅停留在学科讨论的层面上,终究是要归结到社会实际 2 和人的行为中来,解构传统法哲学本位论并不是为了解构法治社会,反而 是为了更好的建构法治社会。和谐无非是指人的和谐,人的行为的和谐。 人的行为是人走向社会的第一个最为简单的标志,和谐法治根本在于人的 行为的和谐,社会主义和谐社会离不开和谐法治。责任对行为的完全精神 使得责任本位主义必然是构建社会主义和谐社会的法哲学基础。社会存在 决定社会意识,社会意识是社会存在的反映。社会主义和谐社会的建构要 求相应的责任意识形态。和谐社会主义社会的存在要求的责任意识具备自 由选择性,积极预测性,及时主动性和非交互性与未来性。 全文约五万余字,除内容摘要与参考文献之外,分为四章。包括: 第一章:绪论。本章主要交代的研究背景和意义、研究状况、基本立 场和主要目标、研究路径与方法,以及论文结构进行概述。为正文的展开 作好铺垫。 第二章:法的本位之争与责任本位的提出。对法的本位问题作了源流 上的探讨以及对法的本位和法的本体问题作了辨析,并就权利本位观、义 务本位观以及权利义务统一论作了比较系统的研究,对我国当前有关法的 本位问题作了深刻分析,在此基本上提出了责任本位论,并对责任本位观 的主要内容和现当代意义进行初步探讨。 第三章:责任本位主义的理论基石。对中国传统文化中、西方文化历 史中以及马克思主义有关责任的思想作简单介绍,并对责任概念作了再次 分析,论证责任生成机制、逻辑基础以及基本范畴。结合当代中国法学研 究热(权利义务),系统地分析了责任与权利义务的关系,特别是从权利义 务对行为的不完全关系和责任对行为的完全关系这两个方面进论证责任 对权利义务的包容关系,为责任本位主义寻求理论支撑。 第四章:责任本位与和谐社会。责任本位主义理论终究是要回到人的 实际中来的,本章主要分析了社会主义和谐社会的法治取向、和谐法治对 责任本位的呼唤,现实社会的责任危机以及在和谐视角下责任意识的当代 取向。

学科:

马克思主义哲学

提交日期

2025-11-27

引用参考

魏剑. 责任本位主义——法哲学本位论的当代转向[D]. 西南政法大学,2008.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 责任本位主义——法哲学本位论的当代转向
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20050101010006
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 魏剑
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 马克思主义学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 哲学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2008
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 左开大
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 离退休工作处
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • ......;......;......
  • dc.subject
  • ......;......;......
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 法哲学是从对人的终极关怀的高度对法律现象进行哲学思考而形成 的学科,法哲学以法律现象与法学研究的存在为基础,其研究重心或立足 点必然与法学研究重心或立足点是相同的,亦可统称为法的本位论。只不 过是研究方法与旨向更加形而上、更加终极罢了。 由于人的行为的深度和向度在不同时代或不同民族是不尽相同的,法 的本位在不同时代或不同的民族有着不同的内涵。法的存在形态经历了神 法宗教法、国家法、市民法、以及现在的宪政状态等,法哲学本位理论也 经历了宗教神、国家权力、权利等形态。当今人类的行为向度和深度都是 史无前例的,在现当代,特别是在后现代思潮冲击下,权利观念和义务观 念不能完全适应人类的行为向度和深度的需要,只有“责任”才可以胜任为 当今法的本位问题。 责任是一种基本的社会关系,是人在世状态的最为一般的标志,有行 为就必然生成责任,与人的行为完全对应。责任是行为的后果的评价,具 有价值蕴涵,而不是行为本身。“负责任”是指以行为来担当,因此“负责 任”是一种行为活动,我们不能混淆“责任”与“负责任”这两个概念,由“责 任”到“负责任”这是一个需要很多条件来成就的过程,要求责任主体的行 为能力、道德良心、行为动机、责任受体的存在与要求以及责任行为不可 抗力或责任行为的可赦免状态的不存在等等。责任关系包含权利关系、义 务关系以及非权利义务的“第三世界关系”,权利义务关系仅仅是人的行为 关系的表现之一,无法为涵盖人的全部价值范畴,必然为现代当法哲学本 位论所不取。同时,权利是“选择 行为”、义务是“应当 行为”的行为模式, 而责任是“行为 应当”的行为模式,既彰显了人的行为的积极状态,又保 证了行为后果的合理评价。 现当代法哲学本位理论研究顺应了后现代思潮,开始摆脱权利义务论 和科技统治的局限,开始对现代理性进行反思,责任伦理学浮出水面并将 日益成为未来社会理论研究的最一般伦理。我国处理非现代与现代、现代 与后现代的夹缝中,为了使我国法学研究少走弯路,对后现代思潮不应当 忽视,法学理论研究也必须超越权利义务理论的框架,将权利义务理论悬 置法的滞后性消解于积极的责任态度与行为中。 责任问题不能仅停留在学科讨论的层面上,终究是要归结到社会实际 2 和人的行为中来,解构传统法哲学本位论并不是为了解构法治社会,反而 是为了更好的建构法治社会。和谐无非是指人的和谐,人的行为的和谐。 人的行为是人走向社会的第一个最为简单的标志,和谐法治根本在于人的 行为的和谐,社会主义和谐社会离不开和谐法治。责任对行为的完全精神 使得责任本位主义必然是构建社会主义和谐社会的法哲学基础。社会存在 决定社会意识,社会意识是社会存在的反映。社会主义和谐社会的建构要 求相应的责任意识形态。和谐社会主义社会的存在要求的责任意识具备自 由选择性,积极预测性,及时主动性和非交互性与未来性。 全文约五万余字,除内容摘要与参考文献之外,分为四章。包括: 第一章:绪论。本章主要交代的研究背景和意义、研究状况、基本立 场和主要目标、研究路径与方法,以及论文结构进行概述。为正文的展开 作好铺垫。 第二章:法的本位之争与责任本位的提出。对法的本位问题作了源流 上的探讨以及对法的本位和法的本体问题作了辨析,并就权利本位观、义 务本位观以及权利义务统一论作了比较系统的研究,对我国当前有关法的 本位问题作了深刻分析,在此基本上提出了责任本位论,并对责任本位观 的主要内容和现当代意义进行初步探讨。 第三章:责任本位主义的理论基石。对中国传统文化中、西方文化历 史中以及马克思主义有关责任的思想作简单介绍,并对责任概念作了再次 分析,论证责任生成机制、逻辑基础以及基本范畴。结合当代中国法学研 究热(权利义务),系统地分析了责任与权利义务的关系,特别是从权利义 务对行为的不完全关系和责任对行为的完全关系这两个方面进论证责任 对权利义务的包容关系,为责任本位主义寻求理论支撑。 第四章:责任本位与和谐社会。责任本位主义理论终究是要回到人的 实际中来的,本章主要分析了社会主义和谐社会的法治取向、和谐法治对 责任本位的呼唤,现实社会的责任危机以及在和谐视角下责任意识的当代 取向。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Legal philosophy is a discipline formed by conducting philosophical thinking from the perspective of utmost solicitude on human. The discipline is based on the existing of legal phenomena and law research thus inevitably shares the same research emphases and research footing with law research, which we can call the standard of law. The only difference between legal philosophy and law is that the research method and direction are more metaphysical and ultimate for the former. Due to the differences of the depth and dimension of human’s behavior in eras and nations, the standard of law is bound to contain different connotations among different eras and nations. The existence of law has undergone various states: divine law and religious law, national law, civil law, and the constitutionalism which is the existing form at present. Accordingly the standard of legal philosophy has experienced such states as religious deism, national power, and rights. At present the dimension and depth of human being’s behavior are unprecedented. Under the impact of modern and contemporary thoughts especially under the impact of postmodern thoughts, the rights concept and duty concept fall short of the dimensional and depth needs of human behavior, which leads “responsibility”to be deemed reasonable issue in regard of contemporary law standard. Responsibility is a basic social relationship and the most common sign of a human being’s existence. Behavior inevitably leads to correspondent responsibility which is in total accordance with such behavior. Responsibility which contains value connotation and which is not behavior itself, is a comment to the result of some specific behavior. While “being responsible” means respond to some specific behavior by action, thus “being responsible” is a kind of behavior. We should not be confused about these concepts of “responsibility”and “being responsibility”. The successful processing from “responsibility”to “being responsible” requires various conditions, such as, the responsibility subject’s behavior ability, moral conscience and motive of behavior, the responsibility object’s existence and request, the force majeure of the behavior of responsibility and the inexistence of the state of amnesty. 2 Responsibility relations include rights relations, duty relations and the non-rights-non-duty“third world relations”. The rights and duty relationship is only one of the manifestations of human’s behavior relationship, which can’t cover the whole value category, and consequently be abandoned by the standard of modern and contemporary legal philosophy. Also, the behavior pattern of responsibility, “behavior ought to”, which differs from that of rights, “selection behavior” and that of duty, “ought to behave ?”, not only shows the activity of human behavior but also promise a reasonable comment of the result of the correspondent behavior. The theoretical research of the standard of modern and contemporary legal philosophy, which is in line with the postmodern trends of thoughts, starts getting rid of the limit of the theory of power and duty as well as the dominance of science and technology, and starts rethinking the modern rationality. Responsibility ethics has already come out and will increasingly become the most common ethics of the future social theory research. China’s law research is now situated in the dilemma between non-modern and modern, modern and postmodern. In order to take a short cut to the success of the law research, post modern thoughts should not be ignored. The theoretical research of law should also transcend the frame of rights and duty theories so as to dispel the lagging of the law research posed by the rights and duty theories by an active responsible attitude and behavior. Responsibility issue by no means should rest at the discipline discussion level; instead, ultimately it should boil down to social reality and human behavior. Deconstructing conventional legal philosophy is not to deconstruct the society ruled by the law; instead it is for the purpose of better constructing a society of the law. Harmony is no more than harmony between human beings that is harmony between their behaviors. Since behavior of human is the first and the simplest sign of a person’s entering into the society, so the basis of harmonious legal system lies in the harmony of people’s behaviors. So we can say that socialism harmonious society cannot live without harmonious legal system. Because of the spiritually dominance of responsibility over behavior, responsibility standard inevitably plays the role of legal philosophy 3 base for socialism harmonious society building. Social being determines social consciousness and social consciousness is the reflection of social being. The construction of socialism harmonious society requires corresponding responsibility consciousness. Harmonious socialism society requires that responsibility should be selective, of active anticipate, prompt, initiative, non-interactive and futuristic. This thesis has about 50000 words. The thesis is divided into 4 chapters (excluding digest and references) as follows: Chapter one: introduction. This chapter mainly introduces the research background and significance of the research, research status, basic standpoint, main objective, research approaches and research methods, the structure of the thesis, all these constitute the foreshadowing of the following part of the text. Chapter two: the controversy over the standard of law and the presenting of the theory of responsibility standard. This chapter discusses the standard of law from the perspective of its originality and discriminates and analyzes the issue of the law standard and law ontology. It also conducts relatively systematical research on rights priority view, duty priority view as well as on rights and duty unification. It conducts profound analysis on our country’s current law priority problem, and based on this it proposes the responsibility standard and performs a preliminary discussion on the main contents and significance of modern and contemporary responsibility standard. Chapter three: the theoretical cornerstone of responsibility standard. This chapter conducts a chief introduction on the thoughts regarding responsibility in traditional Chinese culture, western culture and history, as well as in Marxism. It analyzes the concept of responsibility once again here. This chapter also demonstrates the formation mechanism, logical basis and basic category of responsibility. Taking into consideration of contemporary popular law research (rights and duty) in china, this chapter systematically analyzes the relationship between responsibility and rights. Especially it demonstrates how responsibility contains rights and duty by analyzing that rights and duty do not completely involve behavior but responsibility do completely involve 4 behavior. By such demonstration, this chapter is devoted to seeking for theoretical support for responsibility standard. Chapter four: responsibility standard and harmonious society. Responsibility standard theory finally has to be connected to the reality of people in society. This chapter is mainly devoted to analyzing the legal orientation of socialism harmonious society, harmonious legal system’s calling for responsibility standard, responsibility crisis in practical society as well as the contemporary orientation of responsibility consciousness in the perspective of harmony.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2025-11-27
回到顶部