形式法律推理与实质法律推理的比较研究

发布时间：2018-04-10 08:37

本文选题：法律推理　切入点：形式法律推理　出处：《河北大学》2010年硕士论文

【摘要】： ? ? ? ?法律推理是近代法理学研究的核心问题之一,在法律实践中具有举足轻重的地位。本文致力于逻辑与法律的结合,对法律推理及其基本理论进行分析,按传统形式将法律推理进行划分,分为形式法律推理与实质法律推理。最后,又将两种推理形式进行辩证统一,充分体现了两种推理形式在具体的司法实践中是相互联系、密不可分的。? ? ? ? ?逻辑是一门研究思维形式和思维规律的学问,法律逻辑可以说是法律和逻辑相交叉的一种学科,它是法律工作者将一般法律规则或规范用于具体案件中,证明其判决是否正当的一种工具或一种智力手段。逻辑是法律逻辑的基础,但法律逻辑又不是逻辑在司法实践中的一个简单应用。法律逻辑研究的核心内容是法律推理,法律推理是指法律适用者以可适用于案件事实的法律规范作为大前提,案件事实作为小前提,按照一定的推理形式得出判决结论的思维活动。根据推理的必然有效性是否与推理形式直接相关,法律推理分形式法律推理和实质法律推理两大类。形式法律推理是指推理主体依据案件事实,直接援引相关的法律规范,按照形式逻辑推理规则得出判决结论的一种推理。它与推理的必然有效性和推理形式结构直接相关,体现的是一种“合法性”的价值观念。实质法律推理是指推理主体通过对法律规范和案件事实进行实质内容的分析,并以一定的价值判断为依据而进行的一种推理,体现的是一种“合理性”的价值观念。? 在法律适用过程当中,两种推理形式是相互渗透、彼此交融的。换句话说,所有司法实践中使用的推理都是两种推理形式的辩证结合。首先,推理者在推理过程中必须遵循基本的逻辑形式,让其结论具有说服力,使其推理过程具有逻辑性,结论具有“合法性”;其次,推理者在推理过程中必须考虑有关价值判断,让其结论符合基本的社会价值观,使其结论具有“合理性”。两种推理形式的辩证统一,无论从理论角度讲还是从现实角度讲,都具有重要意义。??
[Abstract]:???Legal reasoning is one of the core issues in modern jurisprudence and plays an important role in legal practice.This paper is devoted to the combination of logic and law, analyzes the legal reasoning and its basic theory, divides the legal reasoning into formal legal reasoning and substantive legal reasoning according to the traditional form.Finally, the two forms of reasoning are dialectically unified, which fully reflects that the two forms of reasoning are interrelated and inseparable in specific judicial practice.???Logic is a study of the form of thinking and the law of thinking. Legal logic can be said to be a subject that intersects law and logic. It is a subject in which legal workers apply general legal rules or norms to specific cases.A tool or intellectual device that justifies his judgment.Logic is the basis of legal logic, but legal logic is not a simple application of logic in judicial practice.The core content of the study of legal logic is legal reasoning. Legal reasoning means that the legal norms that can be applied to the facts of the case are taken as the major premise and the facts of the case as the minor premises.The activity of reaching a conclusion according to a certain form of reasoning.According to whether the inevitable validity of reasoning is directly related to the form of reasoning, legal reasoning is divided into two categories: formal legal reasoning and substantive legal reasoning.Formal legal reasoning is a kind of reasoning in which the reasoning subject directly invokes the relevant legal norms and draws a conclusion according to the formal logic reasoning rules according to the facts of the case.It is directly related to the inexorable validity of reasoning and the structure of reasoning form, and embodies the value of legitimacy.Substantive legal reasoning is a kind of reasoning that the reasoning subject carries on through the analysis of the legal norms and the facts of the case and on the basis of certain value judgment, which embodies a kind of "rational" value concept.In the process of application of law, the two kinds of reasoning form permeate each other and blend with each other.In other words, the reasoning used in all judicial practice is a dialectical combination of the two forms of reasoning.First, the reasoning process must follow the basic logic form, so that its conclusion is persuasive, so that its reasoning process is logical, the conclusion has "legitimacy"; secondly,In the process of reasoning, the inference must consider the relevant value judgment, make its conclusion accord with the basic social values, and make its conclusion "reasonable".The dialectical unity of the two forms of reasoning, whether from a theoretical point of view or from a practical point of view, is of great significance.
【学位授予单位】：河北大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D90-05

【相似文献】