事实的推导、预测与发现——经济人假设作为一种信息的限度与陷阱

在立法过程中,经济人假设对立法事实的发现有一定贡献,但只有在经济人拥有相同程度的理性或拥有同样的利益结构,且其利益构成的权重相同的情形和前提下,运用经济人假设对众多经济人的行为进行社会整体的评价和推测才是可行的,而由于经济人个体之间的巨大差异,这一前提在实践中并不存在,因此运用时须避免误入陷阱。     

Lessons from Philosophy? Interdisciplinary Justice Research and Two Classes of Justice Judgments

More and more scholars of social justice have been calling for a closer collaboration between empirical and normative disciplines. Psychological and sociological research, as well as philosophical theories can, so they claim, learn from one another and work should be based on results obtained in the other fields of research. Some political philosophers do not share this view. They argue that, since most empirical research does not capture people's moral views on justice, its results cannot be of any value to their theories. Based on this critique I suggest in the first part of this paper that empirical research should distinguish between two classes of justice judgments: First, justice judgments in a narrow sense, which are made under conditions of impartiality and grounded in moral principles, and second, justice attitudes, which differ from other types of social attitudes only in their attitude objects. In the second part I present a quasi-experimental study that aimed at testing the two different classes of justice judgments empirically. The results show that justice judgments in the narrow sense can be obtained even under conditions in which complex experimental manipulations cannot be employed. In the third part of this paper I hypothesize that justice judgments which are based on the two formal criteria provided by political philosophy (impartiality and reference to moral principles) may serve as important intervening variables when trying to explain the impact of justice beliefs on different patterns of human behavior.     

基于三角模糊数Vague集的多目标决策方案

本文介绍了一种新的模糊集合，即三角模糊数Vague集，此集合采用三角模糊数来表示Vague集的肯定与否定隶属函数值，使其更加灵活地表达不确定数据的形式，在此基础上，还研究了这种集合下的多目标决策问题。     

刑事侦查中类比推理研究

从侦查学角度入手,通过对逻辑学中类比推理的基本概念、表达形式、性质和特点的研究,揭示出刑事侦查和类比推理之间的内在联系。同时,对类比推理在刑事侦查中的运用进行的理论上的探讨,以及对典型案例的分析,更加突出了类比推理在刑事侦查实践中的作用。     

Narrative,Rhetorical Argument,and Ethical Authority

The great challenge of rhetorical argument is to make discourse ethical without making it less logical. This challenge is of central importance throughout the full range of practical argument, and understanding the relation of the ethical to the logical is one of the principal contributions the humanities, in this case the study of rhetoric, can make to legal scholarship. Aristotle’s Rhetoric shows how arguments can be ethical and can create ethical relations between speaker and hearer. I intend to apply Aristotle’s analysis to a phenomenon that did not yet exist for him, that of authority, by asking how the acts of asserting and accepting authority can be ethical acts. I take as a test case a peculiarly unfortunate and inept appeal to authority, that offered by the counsel for the District of Columbia in arguing Bolling v Sharp who cited Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott to clinch his point. By seeing just what goes wrong in such a maladroit appeal, I explore the rational, voluntary and ethical dimensions of a decision to accept a given commitment to authority. I use Joseph Raz’s analysis of authority and the relation of reason to authority, yet think I go beyond Raz by exploring the deliberate and voluntary nature of submission to authority. Choosing to be bound by an authority is an ethical act. As such it is always rational and yet never purely rational. The Supreme Court’s choice of authorities is part of its making itself into an authority, and is a paradigm of the ethical act of choosing to be obligated. Choosing to be committed or obligated is a central paradox of political theory and considerations of authority and obligation, at least since early social contract theorists. However, its importance for judicial reasoning, which at the same time chooses to submit to authority and itself becomes an authority, has not been noted. Consideration of the relations between the ethical and the logical can help us better to articulate the constitution of ethical authority. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Not `Social Justice': The Housing Association, the Judges, the Tenant and his Lover Fitzpatrick v. Sterling Housing Association [1997] 4 All E.R. 991; [1998] 1 F.L.R. 6 (C.A.); [1999] 4 All E.R. 705 (H.L.)

This note analyses the decision of the House of Lords in Fitzpatrick, which held that gay partners could fall within the legal definition of ‘family’ for some purposes. The note argues that despite the real (if overstated) benefits that this case bestows on gay partners in the form of legal rights, under analysis, the decision self-deconstructs to reveal that it is grounded on the principle of discrimination on the basis of sexuality. However, it is also suggested that the encounter between discursive legal reasoning (underpinned by normative heterosexuality), and aversion of the family which is ‘other’ to this discourse, is one which leaves its mark on law, as the potential undermining or deconstruction of law’s normative assumptions. The note further argues that although this decision is properly seen as a moment in the struggle for gay rights, it also serves as a reminder that the fortunes of critical theories and political movements that seek to challenge the legal paradigm of the white, heterosexual male are inextricably linked. Fitzpatrick, whatever else it is, is also an object lesson in the debt that current campaigns for gay legal rights owe to feminist critiques of, and campaigns that have successfully challenged, the role of this norm in legal discourse. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

刑事裁判文书事实与说理的关联性研究--刑事法律精神的一种逻辑表达进路

刑事裁判文书是具有法律效力的司法文书,其最为重要的目的在于对事实的认定和适用法律,即事实与说理。刑事裁判文书中构筑刑事裁判结论的事实与说理以直接和间接的方式映射了刑事法律精神在刑事裁判文书中的逻辑表达进路。为此,法官需要在刑事裁判文书中理顺事实与说理二者的关系,将刑事司法正义理念和法律精神在刑事裁判文书中一以贯之,提高刑事裁判文书的质量和说理的正当性与合理性,进而通过其制作的刑事裁判文书表达出司法者对刑事法治和司法公正的法律精神的实质性理解。     

论刑案侦查的思维特征

刑案侦查的思维特征是由刑案侦查的特殊性决定的。刑案侦查往往是由犯罪所造成的结果出发,剥茧似地追溯造成该结果之诸种原因(条件),进而再追溯制造这原一因的作案人,从而缉捕犯罪嫌疑人归案。而回溯推理正是以果推因,故回溯推理是刑案侦查最常用最重要的思维形式。刑案侦查之回溯推理有“充分条件式”、“必要条件式”、“充要条件式”、“二难破斥式”等。由于犯罪事件之间的关系有一果多因、一因多果、多果多因,故由果究因之回溯推理所得结论大都是或然的,然而,正是这连续的或然性逐步缩小侦查范围,确定侦查方向,锁定侦查目标,直至缉拿犯罪嫌疑人归案。     

类比推理在侦查中的应用

类比推理虽然获得的是或然的结论,但其“触类旁通”的作用在侦查工作中能帮助侦查人员打开思路,认清案情,同时还有助于侦查假说的提出。在侦查工作中,还可以采用模拟类比的方法。     

Arguing a fortiori

Courts and lawyers often argue a fortiori . Sometimes they actually use the Latin phrase to indicate that their conclusions do not just follow, but ‘follow a fortiori ’ from certain premises. These are taken to be inferences of a distinct and important kind. But how exactly are they distinct, and why are they important? Despite their popularity, a fortiori arguments are not well understood and have not drawn much attention from legal theorists. This paper pursues two goals. The first is to bring out the form of a fortiori arguments, articulating those assumptions that, though typically left unstated, are necessary elements of arguments of this kind. The second goal is to say something about the point of such arguments, and to characterise the sort of context in which an arguer will have reason to deploy an a fortiori rather than an inference of a different type.