法律理性的逻辑辩护

法律理性必须是通过法律论证来实现。法律论证的好坏取决于:(1)前提对结论的支持度;(2)前提的可接受性;(3)前提与结论的相干性;(4)结论的可接受性。从本质上讲,法律论证是一种似真的或可废止的论证,换句话说,其结论通常都不是根据真前提而是根据可接受的前提推导出来的。现实主义法学家对法律论证逻辑基础的挑战表明,仅仅依靠传统逻辑(形式逻辑或演绎逻辑),已不能为法律论证的合理性提供逻辑辩护了。需要在非单调逻辑基础上引入非形式逻辑的"相干性—充足性—可接受性"标准,从非形式逻辑角度为法律论证的合理性提供逻辑辩护,从而也为法律理性的逻辑合理性提供了辩护。

On Logical Justification of Legal Rationality

Legal argument is the only bridge to legal rationality.Whether a legal argument is good or not must depend on:1) the supporting strength from premises to conclusion;2) the acceptability of premises;3) the relevance between premises and conclusion;and 4) the acceptability of conclusion.A legal argument is plausible or defeasible in nature,i.e.,a conclusion is not follows from true premises but from acceptable ones.The challenge that legal realists have aimed at the logical foundation of legal argument shows that we can not logically justify a good legal argument only by traditional(formal or deductive) logic.In this paper,we introduce the RSA standard developed by informal logician such as Ralph H.Johnson and J.Anthony Blair on the basis of non-monotonic logic,and show from informal logical perspectives what a good legal argument is,and further logically justify legal rationality.