司法适用中的实质推理探究

发布时间：2018-03-15 04:27

本文选题：实质推理　切入点：价值判断　出处：《烟台大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：实质推理作为一种从或然性之中去寻求命题和结论的工具。既然作为一种这样的工具,在司法实践中的运用并不广泛,其主要归因于司法改革的背景之下责任制度的因素,其次是相比于形式推理,实质推理的运用难度较之更高。本文着重于将实质推理置于司法改革环境之下,审视实质推理在司法实践中是如何由理论到实践的。在实质推理的运用过程中,必要的步骤就是对大小前提的寻找,然而对于大小前提的寻找常常需要法官通过价值的对比和选择来确定案件的大小前提即价值判断。广义的实质推理还包括对于论题本身的一种论证,本文主要从哈贝马斯的真理共识论到佩雷尔曼的普泛听众概念再到阿列克西的法律论证理论,探讨如何实证地对明希豪森三重困境提出有益的想法。然后通过实证地分析实质推理在相关的部门法领域以及典型个案中是如何发挥作用的、在实质推理过程中法律制度规范形式多样,包括规则、原则、政策、习惯、社会信念等,均具有普遍性。当它们发生冲突的时候,又当如何处理不同类型的案件。形式推理与实质推理在司法实践过程中并非是非此即彼,决然分离的,毋宁是糅合在一个个具体案件之中,二者更多的的是一种层次关系。所以本文旨在坚持形式逻辑的同时,研究实质推理在司法实践中的进路。即通过在法学方法论层面上搭配衔接其他地法律方法使得实质推理在司法实践在理论上更加丰富,也在司法实践和法学教育中融会贯通实质推理的思维模式,使得实质推理从理论到实践与其他的法律方法相得益彰。本文的创新之处在于:其一,文章是由理论到实践再到理论,遵循了认识发展的自然规律,这也是正确认识实质推理必由之路,这也是行文的主要脉络;其二,文章在理论的引用上,对比分析了不同理论之间的一脉相承之处和亦分析了理论分歧,在文章需用之处引而用之,以证文义。其三,在实质推理的困境的解决上的强调了信念之网的重要性,并未将视野局限于实质推理本身,这样才能更好地发挥实质推理的作用。
[Abstract]:Substantive reasoning as a tool to seek propositions and conclusions from probabilities. Since it is not widely used in judicial practice, it is mainly attributed to the factors of responsibility system under the background of judicial reform. Secondly, the application of substantive reasoning is more difficult than formal reasoning. Examine how substantial reasoning in judicial practice from theory to practice. In the application of substantive reasoning, the necessary step is to find the size of the premise, However, the search for the premise of size often requires the judge to determine the premise of the size of the case through the comparison and selection of value. The broad substantive reasoning also includes a kind of argument for the topic itself. This paper mainly from Habermas's theory of consensus of truth to Perelman's concept of Pan-audience and Oleksiy's theory of legal argumentation. This paper discusses how to empirically put forward some useful ideas to Minghhausen's triple dilemma, and then empirically analyzes how substantial reasoning plays a role in relevant branch law fields as well as in typical cases. In the process of substantive reasoning, the legal system has a variety of forms, including rules, principles, policies, habits, social beliefs, etc., when they conflict, And how to deal with different types of cases. Formal reasoning and substantive reasoning are not either or or or in the course of judicial practice, rather than be mixed in one concrete case, So the purpose of this paper is to adhere to formal logic at the same time, To study the approach of substantive reasoning in judicial practice, that is to say, to enrich the theory of substantive reasoning in judicial practice by collocating with other legal methods on the level of law methodology, Also in judicial practice and law education, the thinking mode of substantive reasoning is integrated, which makes substantive reasoning complement each other from theory to practice with other legal methods. The innovation of this paper lies in the following: first, The article is from theory to practice to theory, followed the natural law of cognitive development, which is also the only way to correctly understand the essential reasoning, which is also the main thread of the writing. This paper makes a comparative analysis of the different theories and analyzes the theoretical differences, which are used in the article to prove the meaning of the text. Thirdly, it emphasizes the importance of the net of beliefs in the solution of the dilemma of substantive reasoning. It is not confined to the substantive reasoning itself, so that it can play a better role in substantive reasoning.
【学位授予单位】：烟台大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D90-051

【相似文献】