哈特与德夫林论战的述评

发布时间：2018-02-22 17:35

本文关键词： 哈特德夫林沃尔芬登报告论战道德考量　出处：《南京师范大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：在自由主义经济制度受到限制,社会功利主义风行以及个人自由主义理念受到冲击的背景下,20世纪60年代,哈特与德夫林对有关同性恋、卖淫等性道德行为是否应当予以刑事处罚的问题展开了激烈的论战。论战的起因来自英国1957年发布的《委员会关于同性恋罪错和卖淫问题的报告》。报告建议取消对同性恋行为的刑事制裁。针对《沃尔芬登报告》的观点,保守派的德夫林以社会崩溃论、法律强制理论、道德保守主义与“温和论”为自己的理论出发点,提出了自己的主张。他认为必须通过法律的强制来惩罚同性恋、卖淫等行为,以护卫作为社会存在之基石的共享道德。哈特对德夫林的观点进行了批判,认为以法律强制执行道德的观点错误。哈特的观点以自由主义理论和实证主义哲学为基础,秉持密尔的“伤害原则”,并建立在分析实证主义的法学基础之上。哈特与德夫林的这场论战可以分为三个阶段,主要针对三个问题：第一,法律在社会中的作用是什么?德夫林站在“社会本位”的立场上强调法律对普遍存在的社会共享道德的保护。但哈特并不同意德夫林的观点,他认为道德对社会的作用并不如德夫林所说的那么大,道德也不是始终不变的,应在公共道德和私人道德之间划一条界限,反对法律不适当地干预私人道德生活。第二,民主与自由的问题。德夫林认为,一般情况下,大多数人所赞成的总是被认可的。哈特指出,德夫林的这种以普遍大多数认可为标准的民主观念有走向“大多数的暴政”的危险。第三,道德的法律强制执行问题。在这一轮论战中,德夫林对法律强制执行道德问题的正当性进行了阐述。而哈特则证成了法律强制执行道德的不适当性,反对对那些隐私性的、对他人无害的不道德行为进行强制。哈德论战深化了分析实证主义法律思想,不仅推动了分析实证主义法学的复兴,也使分析实证主义法学有了关键性的突破,即打破了实证主义法学完全排斥道德因素的传统。第二,论战推动了法学方法论的创新,即打破法律实证主义的前提预设——事实与价值的分离,创设“价值中立”的立场。第三,哈德论战界定了法律与道德问题。论战启发我们在立法中应当考虑道德因素,但也要注意各自的限度和界限的。归根结底,哈特与德夫林的论战在本质上就是一场关于个体自由与共同体自主的大讨论。以哈特为代表的自由主义者把个人的自由和权利作为其立论的基点,认为个人权利优先于社会责任,极力维护个体自由。以德夫林为代表的社群主义者们则强调道德共同体的价值高于道德个体的价值。
[Abstract]:Against the background of the restriction of liberal economic system, the popularity of social utilitarianism and the impact of individual liberalism, Hart and Devlin had a close relationship with homosexuality in 60s. There has been a heated debate on whether sexual morality such as prostitution should be criminalized. The cause of the debate came from the commission's report on the crime of homosexuality and prostitution, released on 1957. The report recommended that criminal sanctions for homosexual acts be lifted. The conservative Devlin has put forward his own ideas based on the theories of social collapse, legal compulsion, moral conservatism and "moderation". He believes that homosexuality and prostitution must be punished through legal coercion. Hart criticizes Devlin's view that enforcing morality by law is wrong. Hart's view is based on liberal theory and positivism philosophy. Adhering to Mill's principle of injury, and based on the analysis of positivism on the basis of jurisprudence. The debate between Hart and Devlin can be divided into three stages, focusing on three questions: first, what is the role of law in society? From a "social standard" standpoint, Devlin emphasized the protection of the law for the universal social shared morality. But Hart did not agree with Devlin, who believed that morality did not have as much of a role to society as Devlin suggested. Morality is not always the same, and a line should be drawn between public and private morality to oppose the improper interference of the law in private moral life. Secondly, the question of democracy and freedom. What most people approve of is always accepted. Hart points out that Devlin's democratic concept, which is generally accepted by the majority, is in danger of moving towards "majority tyranny." third, The legal enforcement of morality. In this round of debates, Devlin explains the legitimacy of the moral issue of legal enforcement. Hart proves that it is inappropriate for law to enforce morality. To impose a harmless immoral act on another. The Harder controversy deepened the analysis of positivism legal thought, not only promoted the revival of analytical positivism law, but also made a key breakthrough in the analysis of positivism law. That is, it breaks the tradition that positivism law completely excludes moral factors. Second, the controversy promotes the innovation of law methodology, that is, breaking the premise presupposition of legal positivism-the separation of fact and value. The third point is that the controversy between law and morality defines the issue of law and morality. It inspires us to consider moral factors in legislation, but also to pay attention to their respective limits and boundaries. In the final analysis, the controversy between Hart and Devlin is essentially a great discussion of individual freedom and community autonomy. Liberals, represented by Hart, regard individual freedoms and rights as the basis of their arguments. The communists, represented by Devlin, emphasized that the value of moral community was higher than that of moral individual.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D90

【相似文献】