“把法律作为修辞”的限度——与陈金钊教授商榷

发布时间：2018-09-16 21:07

【摘要】：陈金钊教授倡言把法律作为修辞,以对抗当下我国过于强大的政治修辞、道德修辞。该观点虽有一定的积极意义,但其论述的"法律修辞"是一个歧义性概念:把法律作为言语论辩技巧意义上的语言修辞,混淆了法律思维本身与对法律思维的表达;把法律作为论证模式、为结论的可接受性提供说服力的论证修辞,赋予了法律修辞太高的期待。法律修辞或然性推理的逻辑基础、达成主体间合意的路径以及可接受性的评价标准的特点,理论上是对经典法治的反动,实践中因为法律修辞的泛化和滥用而具有背离法治目标的倾向。因此,法律修辞只能是辅助性的法律方法。法律修辞的限度是逻辑,只有将法律修辞限制于逻辑范围,在合理(逻辑)性、合法性的基础上,可接受性才有意义,过度地强调可接受性很有可能将法治导入歧途。
[Abstract]:Professor Chen Jinzhao advocated that law should be regarded as rhetoric to counter the political rhetoric and moral rhetoric of our country. Although the viewpoint has some positive significance, the legal rhetoric is a ambiguous concept: taking law as the rhetorical figure of speech argumentation skills confuses the legal thinking itself with the expression of the legal thinking; Taking the law as the argumentation mode and providing persuasive argumentation rhetoric for the acceptability of the conclusion endow the legal rhetoric with too high expectation. The logical basis of legal rhetoric probabilistic reasoning, the path of reaching consensus among subjects and the characteristics of acceptable evaluation criteria are, in theory, reactionary to the classical rule of law. In practice, there is a tendency to deviate from the goal of rule of law because of the generalization and abuse of legal rhetoric. Therefore, legal rhetoric can only be an auxiliary legal method. The limit of legal rhetoric is logic. Only by limiting legal rhetoric to logical scope, on the basis of rationality and legitimacy, can acceptability be meaningful. Too much emphasis on acceptability is likely to lead the rule of law astray.
【作者单位】：山东大学威海法学院;
【基金】：教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目“自适应逻辑研究”(13YJAZH131)阶段性研究成果
【分类号】：D90-055

【相似文献】