论物质性人格权的性质与立法原则

The Nature and Legislative Principle of Material Personality Right

物质性人格权是否具有积极利用的属性是人格权理论的重大争议问题。肯定说认为物质性人格权也具有积极利用的属性,否定说依据康德的“人是目的不是手段”的目的公式予以否定,进而将物质性人格权限于防御性权利。但是,否定说误读了康德的目的公式,也没有注意黑格尔和马克思的观点。康德目的公式的本意是“人是目的与手段的统一”,黑格尔、马克思发展了康德的目的公式,并不排斥物质性人格权的积极利用。物质性人格权的积极利用属性源于人的生物性,随着科学技术的进步和市场经济的发展,其在现代社会具有重要的价值和作用,应为立法高度重视。物质性人格权兼具防御性和积极利用性,立法应在伦理优先,兼顾利益的原则下,充分肯定物质性人格权的积极利用,同时对物质性人格权的积极利用予以法定限制,确保物质性人格权的积极利用实现人的“目的”与“手段”的统一。中国民法典人格权编初步体现了这一原则,但如何合理把握物质性人格权积极利用的度,任重道远。

Whether the material personality right has the attribute of active utilization is a major controversial issue in the theory of personality right.It must be that the material personality right also has the attribute of positive utilization.The negation says that Kant's purpose formula of“man is the purpose or the means”is negated,and then the material personality right is restricted to the defensive right.But the theory of negation misread Kant's purpose formula and failed to pay attention to Hegel's and Marx's viewpoints.The original meaning of Kant's purpose formula is"man is the unity of purpose and means".Hegel and Marx developed Kant's pur-pose formula,which does not exclude the positive use of material personality right.The positive use attribute of material personality right originates from the biological nature of human beings.With the progress of sci-ence and technology and the development of market economy,it has an important value and role in modern society,which should be highly valued by legislation.Material personality right has both defensive and active use.Legislation should fully affirm the active use of material personality right under the principle of giving priority to both interests and ethics.Colleagues should give legal restrictions to the active use of material per-sonality right to ensure the active use of material personality right to achieve the unity of“purpose”and“means”.