道德的流变性及法律的独立性

发布时间：2018-02-09 20:13

本文关键词： 道德流变性法律独立性功利主义实证主义　出处：《华东政法大学》2009年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】： 稍加思考,我们就可以发现道德生活并非“天不变,道亦不变”、恒守既往。道德形式在那相对平静的表面下汹涌激流。然而,道德变化是以何方式进行?内动力如何?有无规律可循?是趋向于光明、善良,还是趋向于邪恶、杂乱无序还是两者之间的徘徊?道德的流变性对于人们特别是对于法律人而言有何启发和警醒?这些问题不仅是伦理学家应当关注的焦点,同样法律人也应当给予相同的热情,从而为法律人理解法律与道德关系打开伦理学之门。本文共分三个部分讨论法律与道德的关系。第一部分主要讨论了道德的流变性问题。我们认为:道德是社会制定或认可的关于人们具有社会效用(亦即利害人己)的行为应该而非必须如何的非权力规范。深入分析可以得出道德流变的三大原因:一、社会:道德规范的制定或认可主体处于变化之中,二、舆论:其易变性和可控性,决定了道德的流变性。三、经济:道德与经济存在着“二反背律”现象。分析道德的流变,进而得出道德的善恶具有相对性。从功利的角度来说,人们总是认为应当抛弃不利的事物也就是恶的事物,而应当接受对人们更有利的事物,也就是善的事物。也就是说,道德的流变,也就是表现为人们对其所认为的恶德的抛弃,而对于其所谓的善德的接受。第二部分主要针对第一部分得出的善德与恶德的区分,分析善与恶的相关理论,即从善与恶的概念分析、善与恶的评判标准、善德与恶德的人性角度分析等方面进行论述。探讨上述问题的目的在于明晰道德本身是一种善还是恶,即对道德本身作出价值判断,从而得出道德可能是一种必要的恶:道德就其自身而言,不过是对人的某些欲望和自由的限制、压抑和侵犯,因而是一种恶;就其结果和目的来说,却能防止更大的恶(如社会丧失基本秩序)和求得更大的善(如社会的有序发展),因而是净余额为善的恶,是必要的恶。同时,道德可能也是一种纯粹的恶:道德本身是一种恶已经非常明确,无须再言。但同时,如果一种道德的目的并不能防止更大的恶或者求得更大的幸福,那么这种道德就是一种纯粹的恶。另外,通过人性的分析,人性为恶,决定了道德本身必为恶。所以,通过立场的分析和抉择,从功利的角度来说,道德只能是手段而不是目的。这个结论为法律与道德的关系解决了第一个问题:道德本身不是终极目标,人的利益和幸福才是一切社会制度的终极目标。第三部分,开始讨论法律与道德关系。本部分主要解决第二个问题:法的效力是不是来源于道德?即:法律的目的直接是终极目标,还是通过道德从而间接达到终极目标?本部分从法律与道德目的的同一性、法律不是最低限度的道德等角度探讨了法律的独立性,进而为法律应当宽容恶德做好铺垫。最后,本部分从法治、司法独立和权力制约三个角度论述了法律独立于道德的必要性和意义。
[Abstract]:A little thought, we can find the moral life is not "the same day, the Dow has not changed, to keep the past. Form of morality in the relatively calm the raging rapids under the surface. However, what is the way of moral change? Power? There is no regularity? Tend to be bright, kind, or trend in evil, wandering between out of order or both? What is the rheology of moral enlightenment and warning for the legal person for people especially? These questions are not only the focus of attention should ethicists, the same legal person shall be given the same enthusiasm, thus opening the door for legal ethics people understand the law and morality.
This article is divided into three parts to discuss the relationship between law and morality.
The first part mainly discusses the problem of the rheology of morality. We believe that morality is a non power norm which is formulated or approved by the society about the behavior of people who have social utility, that is, the interests of others.
In depth analysis, we can get three reasons for moral change: first, society: the formulation or accreditation of moral norms is changing; two, public opinion: its variability and controllability determine the rheology of morality. Three, economy: there is a phenomenon of "two reverse rules" in morality and economy.
The obtained rheological analysis of moral, moral good and evil is relative. From a utilitarian point of view, people always think that we should abandon the negative things that evil things, and shall be subject to people more favorable things, is also the good things. That is to say, the moral evolution, which shows people abandon to think evil, and to accept the so-called virtue.
The second part mainly for the first part of the distinction between virtue and evil, the relevant theoretical analysis of good and evil, that is from the concept analysis of good and evil, good and evil judgment standard, good and evil of human nature view De De analysis aspects. The discussion of the above issues in order to clarify the moral itself is a kind of good or evil, that is to judge the morality itself, so that morality may be a necessary evil: moral itself, but to some people desire and the restriction of freedom, oppression and aggression, which is a kind of evil; its result and purpose, can prevent the greater evil (such as the loss of social order) and obtain greater good (such as the orderly development of the society, so it is good) net balance of evil is a necessary evil. At the same time, may also be a purely moral evil: morality is a kind of evil has been very clear, no I say. But at the same time, if a moral purpose does not prevent a greater evil or get more happiness, then the moral is a kind of pure evil. In addition, through the analysis of human nature, human nature is evil, evil will determine the morality itself. Therefore, through the analysis and choice of position. From a utilitarian point of view, morality is only a means to an end. This conclusion solved the first problem is the relationship between law and morality, morality itself is not the ultimate goal, the interests of the people and the happiness is the ultimate goal of all of the social system.
The third part begins with a discussion of the relationship between law and morality. This part mainly solves second problems: the effect of law is not derived from morality?: the purpose of the law directly or through morality is the ultimate goal, and thus indirectly to achieve the ultimate goal? This part from the legal and moral purpose of identity, the law is not the minimum the moral aspects of independence of law, and the law should tolerate evil pave the way. Finally, this part of the rule of law, judicial independence and restriction of power from three aspects: legal independent moral necessity and significance.

【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2009
【分类号】：D90-05

【参考文献】