当代中国若干教育理念的反思

权威主义、功利主义、精英主义和科学主义是长期以来存留在当今教育工作中的重要教育理念,权威主义以教育为绝对权威,并对教育内容进行神化,成为实施创新教育的最大障碍;以眼前利益为价值取向的功利主义虽然能带来教育表面的繁荣,但却是对教育真正内涵的阉割;仅仅关注极少数“英才”教育的精英主义教育理念,其实是古代圣人统治说在今天的体现,它不仅有悖于教育民主化的世界潮流,而且也有碍于国家的发展;具有科学万能论色彩的科学主义本身便是违反科学的,而它造成的怀疑精神的缺失则是这种教育理念在教育方面造成的最大负面影响。     

Welfare-Consequentialism: A Vaccine for Populism?

This article is about two ideologies. Welfare-consequentialism holds that government should adopt the policies that can rationally be expected to maximise aggregate welfare. Populism holds that society is divided into a pure people and a corrupt elite, and asserts that public policy should express the general will of the people. The responses of world governments to the coronavirus pandemic have clearly illustrated the contrast between these ideologies, and the danger that populist government poses to human wellbeing. The article argues that welfare-consequentialism offers a vaccine for populism. First, it rebuts populism’s claims about who government is for and what it should do. Second, the pessimism and distrust that make people crave populism can be satiated by successful welfare-consequentialist government. Finally, welfare-consequentialism’s sunny narrative of progress can be just as compelling to people as populism’s dark story has proven to be.     

帮助立功的法律性质及司法确立路径

帮助立功是典型立功的异化形态。帮助立功的困境是，因为帮助者因素的介入，犯罪分子的立功无法被刑法独立评价。帮助立功规制的重点不是帮助立功本身，而是帮助立功中的伴随违法行为，这是帮助立功正义性的“底线”。司法实践应当有限度地承认帮助立功。     

立功之功利主义导向研究

一方面司法资源的不足与大量犯罪黑数的存在，另一方面某些犯罪人掌握着其他人的犯罪事实或犯罪线索而不愿意举报。面对这一形势新《刑法》创设了立功制度，为犯罪人提供从宽量刑的机会，以刺激犯罪人的举报积极性。可见立功最初的设定体现了强烈的功利主义导向，它满足了国家与犯罪人追求各自最大幸福的需求。立功不要求犯罪人悔罪，也不关注犯罪事实或犯罪线索的来源，只要提供了他人的犯罪事实或犯罪线索即可认定为立功。     

节约型社会视角下的物权客体

传统物权客体理论在指导思想、物的特征表现、价值属性和使用方式等方面与节约型社会理念存在诸多矛盾。节约型社会视角下的物权客体制度需要以经济学的“效用主义”为指导，通过非市场评价法将物的生态价值货币化，从而建立一个以一般法和特别法相结合的法律规定为主体、以法律解释为补充的法律体系。     

去道德化视角下的法正当性问题

德国学者哈贝马斯曾将实践理性的运用途径划分为道德、伦理和实用三种途径。法的正当性与道德的独特联系正源于,与伦理和实用角度的运用相比,实践理性道德角度的运用所产生的规范性资源具有某种特殊的说理性优势。在西方法律思想史中,历史主义与功利主义法哲学分别代表着从伦理与实用的角度看待法正当性问题的最典型学派,而其所面临的问题则从反面说明了,从实践理性的深层结构来看,法与道德的关系问题仍是现代社会法正当性问题的要害,道德话语是建构法正当性无法置换的规范性资源。     

把法官当“人”看——兼论程序失灵现象及其补救

中国司法审判中程序失灵现象泛滥的根本原因之一,即在于部分诉讼立法和管理规则与法官作为人的本性相冲突,要么没有合理关照法官的正当利益诉求,要么对法官滥用权力的冲动防范不足。一个必要的改进方向,就是正视法官作为社会人和经济人的本质,通过合理的制度设计引导法官将自利行为与司法公正融为一体,将制度规范内化为法官的自主行为,从而最终实现制度与行动者的协调统一。     

从功利到道义:当代中国权利观念道德基础的构建

当今中国社会,以社会利益优先为内涵的功利主义权利观念占据主导地位。然而其存在的理论缺陷及其在实践中的不良影响已凸显了出来。道义论权利观念以人的尊严和自主性为权利之本,能更好地证成权利的平等性以及弱势群体的福利权,从而有效回应当下中国社会问题,显现出了其理论优势。虽然既有的功利主义权利观念基于传统和现实因素,依然拥有着较强大的影响力。然而在社会转型过程中,道义论的权利观念将在两种权利观念范式复杂地博弈中,逐渐地确立自己的地位。     

技术侦查的确立对刑事诉讼目的的影响——从功利主义的观点出发

2013年1月1日正式实施的刑事诉讼法确立的技术侦查措施,是立法者诉讼理念的转变,将技术侦查措施的授权从普通法律提升到国家基本程序法的高度,有利于技术侦查规范化和法治化,对于刑事诉讼能够充分发挥打击犯罪与保障人权作用,具有重大进步意义。但囿于现阶段立法的不健全不完善,技术侦查措施在司法实践中亦将难施拳脚。文章将在对技术侦查措施对实现刑事诉讼目的利弊进行分析的基础上,运用功利主义的合理观点,从取证手段横向比较与"保护"和"侵犯"纵向权衡两方面,分析当前技术侦查措施对刑事诉讼目的的影响,并提出相应完善建议。     

Justifying grounds for multicultural policies in Korea: universal human rights versus benefits of diversity

Multicultural policies often deviate from the principle of equal opportunity since it assumes exclusive policy target groups with extra budget and appropriate organization. If this is so, by what rationale can multicultural policies be justified? Why should we accept such unequal treatment as a procedural method to achieve a more equal society as the final goal? This paper examines justifying logic for multicultural policies that inevitably have an arbitrary aspect of state intervention. This paper first differentiates two kinds of logic, namely universal human rights and the benefits of diversity, which provide supporting rationale for the implementation of multicultural policies. We can witness from the US history that the benefits of diversity have increasingly become the main logic justifying affirmative action instead of liberal discussions on social justice and universal human rights of the 1960s. Korea also shows such a shift towards a utilitarian justification which has focused heavily on the benefits of diversity. However, the utilitarian rationalization for multicultural transition can be easily withdrawn when the benefits of ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity disappear, suddenly leading to unexpected discriminatory situations. In this context, this paper argues that discussion of normative justification is required, and such discussions need to be internalized among the citizens of a political community.