论文部分内容阅读
罗尔斯把康德的法权哲学解释为一种整全的自由主义,主张其有效性必须依赖于道德哲学原理。托马斯·博格则提出了康德法权论的独立性论题,即法权论无需建基于其哲学体系,而是自身独立的。博格对康德法权论的独立性阐释是成问题的,这主要体现在四个方面:首先,就康德对法权的定义而言,博格的阐释不恰当地忽视了道德法则在其中所起的根本作用。其次,在解读法权的普遍原则时,博格虽然独到地发掘了其中所包含的强制性要素,却令人遗憾地偏离了更为重要的普遍性因素。再次,博格把康德哲学中法权的基础解释为利益诉求,不符合康德实际上诉诸道德主体和道德法则的思路。最后,博格对于国家法权独立于道德观的论证,混淆了宪政的道德本质与其实现进程两类不同的主题,并无充分的说服力,而从公共法权的公设与宪政下的民众权利来看,康德的国家法权具有道德基础。
Rawls interpreted Kant’s philosophy of law as a complete liberalism, arguing that its validity must depend on the principles of moral philosophy. Thomas Borg put forward the thesis of the independence of Kant’s theory of rights, that is, the theory of rights does not need to be based on its philosophical system but is independent. Borg’s interpretation of the independence of Kant’s theory of rights is problematic, which is mainly reflected in four aspects: First of all, as far as Kant’s definition of legal right is concerned, Borg’s interpretation inappropriately ignores the moral law in which The fundamental role played. Second, when deciphering the universal principle of legal rights, Borg, although uniquely exploiting the mandatory elements contained therein, regrettably departs from the more important universal factors. Thirdly, Borg interprets the basis of the law of power in Kant’s philosophy as the appeal of interests, which is not in line with Kant’s idea of actually resorting to the moral subject and moral law. Finally, Borg confronts two kinds of different themes of the constitutional ethical nature and the process of its realization, such as the argument that state power is independent of morality, and there is no sufficient persuasion. From public opinion of public law and public rights under constitutional government From the point of view, Kant’s moral rights have a moral basis.