“把法律作为修辞”的限度——与陈金钊教授商榷

The Restrictions on“Taking the Law as Rhetoric”:Discussion with Professor Chen Jinzhao

陈金钊教授倡言把法律作为修辞,以对抗当下我国过于强大的政治修辞、道德修辞。该观点虽有一定的积极意义,但其论述的"法律修辞"是一个歧义性概念:把法律作为言语论辩技巧意义上的语言修辞,混淆了法律思维本身与对法律思维的表达;把法律作为论证模式、为结论的可接受性提供说服力的论证修辞,赋予了法律修辞太高的期待。法律修辞或然性推理的逻辑基础、达成主体间合意的路径以及可接受性的评价标准的特点,理论上是对经典法治的反动,实践中因为法律修辞的泛化和滥用而具有背离法治目标的倾向。因此,法律修辞只能是辅助性的法律方法。法律修辞的限度是逻辑,只有将法律修辞限制于逻辑范围,在合理(逻辑)性、合法性的基础上,可接受性才有意义,过度地强调可接受性很有可能将法治导入歧途。

Professor Chen Jinzhao advocated a topic that we should take the law as rhetoric.The intention of this topic is against the current strong political rhetoric and moral rhetoric.Even this view has some positive significance,he misunderstood the concept of＂Legal Rhetoric＂.Taking the law as language rhetoric on the sense of argumentation skills,the author confused the legal thinking and the expression of legal thinking.The author gives legal rhetoric too high expectations.The logic foundation of legal rhetoric＇s probabilistic reasoning,the path of reaching to the inter-subjectivity common view,and the evaluation standard of acceptability,is the reactionary on classical theory.The generalization and the abuse of legal rhetoric have a tendency to deviate from the goal of the rule of law in practice.Therefore,legal rhetoric is only a complementary method of legal methods.The limitation of rhetoric is the logic.Only limiting the legal rhetoric to the scope of logic,on the foundation of reasoning（on the logic）,and legitimacy,can the acceptability make sense.Excessive emphasis on acceptance is likely to lead the rule of law into wrong paths.