摘要
明希豪森三重困境(即无限倒退、循环论证、主观断然终止),并不是怀疑理性证成之可能的充分根据。如果我们放弃幼稚的演绎主义证成观念,承认法律论证的可废止性,那么这种困境的出现就可以被看作是法律证成本身的特征。法律规则的证成力量是有限的,它不能为每一案件决定性地提供唯一正解。法庭上的论辩说理依赖于法律程序、过程和论据,是随着论据的不断出现以及角色的不断互换,各方主张不断得到巩固或被动摇的动态对话过程。
The Münchhausen Trilemma(i.e.,an infinite regress,a logical circle,or a subjective arbitrary termination)is not a sufficient basis for doubting the possibility of rational justification.This Trilemma can be seen as characteristic of legal justification itself if we abandon the naïve deductivism conception of justification and recognize the defeasibility of legal argumentation.The justificative force of legal rules is limited,and they cannot decisively provide the only right answer for each case.Legal reasoning in court relies on legal procedures,processes,and arguments,and is a dynamic process of dialogue in which the claims of the parties are constantly consolidated or shaken as arguments emerge and roles are constantly swapped.
出处
《经贸法律评论》
2023年第4期62-75,共14页
Business and Economic Law Review
基金
教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目“基于推论主义语义学的法律解释理论研究”(项目批准号:19YJC820051)
深圳市哲学社会科学规划课题“科技进步对法律发展的影响研究”(项目批准号:SZ2022B021)。
关键词
裁判说理
演绎推理
动态对话
可废止性
法律证成
Reasoning of Judgement
Deductive Reasoning
Dynamic Dialogue
Defeasibility
Legal Justification
