论文部分内容阅读
司法三段论的应用是法官推理过程的体现,但是单纯把司法三段论看作是形式逻辑学中三段论在法律适用中的直接适用是不准确的和没有根据的。实务中的司法三段论是融入了法律实质内容,并且其推导出的结论是具有有效性、合法性及权威性的,虽然当今的法学家对此有争议。本文以法律规范与案件事实的关系为视角来探讨三段论推理及其评价。通过相关研究我们知道,三段论推理作为演绎推理的一种,作为一种思维方式具有无可替代的作用,它是能实现法律的确定性、统一性和客观性的,并且法律论证的逻辑有效性对于实际的论证活动依然是个比较重要的评价标准。
The application of the judicial syllogism is a reflection of the process of judge reasoning. However, it is inaccurate and unfounded to regard the judicial syllogism simply as the direct application of syllogism in formal logic to the application of law. In practice, the syllogism of the judiciary incorporates the substance of the law and its conclusions are valid, legal and authoritative, although contemporary jurists dispute it. This article discusses syllogism and its evaluation from the perspective of the relationship between legal norms and the facts of the case. Through the relevant research we know that syllogism as a kind of deductive reasoning has an irreplaceable role as a way of thinking, which is to achieve the certainty of the law, unity and objectivity, and the logical validity of legal argument For the actual demonstration activities is still a more important evaluation criteria.