后果主义法律论证的型式及其评估

为了实现法律效果与社会效果的统一,司法裁判在确保法律效果的同时,也应该追求积极的社会效果。诉诸后果进行法律论证,是指根据判决结论可能导致的积极影响来证立规范性命题。这种推理模式受到法律实用主义的影响,属于探效逻辑的范畴。结果导向的司法决策应接受逻辑思维的规训,运用论证型式对其论证结构进行刻画,可以防范社会效果的异化。运用批判性讨论的模型可以对后果主义法律论证进行评估。对批判性问题进行辩驳和回应可以分析法律论证的可证成性与可废止性,从而说明后果主义法律论证的证成标准和成立限度。

To achieve a unity between legal outcomes and social outcomes,judicial decisions should pursue positive social effects while ensuring the legal outcomes.This involves employing consequentialist legal argumentation,which justifies normative propositions based on the potential positive impacts of a ruling.This reasoning model is influenced by legal pragmatism and falls within the scope of teleological logic.To prevent the alienation of social effects,consequence-oriented judicial decisions should be subjected to the discipline of argumentative logic.This necessitates the use of argumentation schemes to delineate the structure of such arguments,and the application of critical discussion models to evaluate them.By analyzing the rebuttals and responses to critical questions,the justifiability and defeasibility of legal arguments can be assessed,thereby elucidating the standards of justification and limitations for consequentialist legal arguments.