内在陈述的表达主义构造成立吗?——哈特后设法理论立场之诠释

Is There Any Reason to Support Expressivist Reshape of Internal Statement?——An Interpretation of Hart s Metalegal Theory

表达主义旨在从哲学自然主义框架内部,以一种区别于自然主义还原论的方式解释规范性概念的含义。通过对内在陈述的纯粹表达主义构造,法律实证主义可以容纳理论分歧或者实质法律争议,证明内在陈述与言说者的动机必然关联,并且支持一种承认规则的弱存在性主张。但是,由于无法处理嵌入难题以及解释内在—外在陈述分歧,内在陈述的纯粹表达主义重构面临危机。作为替代方案,混合表达主义认为内在陈述同时拥有属性指派和态度表达两个部分。然而,混合表达主义并不能承诺在每一类规范性语句中,对应描述性述谓的态度都能够被合理构想,因此依然没有摆脱嵌入难题。更妥当的策略或许是接受一种准表达主义,它承认规范性语句是对意动心灵状态或者态度的表达,但态度部分既不会进入表达之内容的语义之中,也不与规范性判断的描述性部分必然关联,而是以一种语用蕴含的方式传递评价性信息,由此,准表达主义同时回应了嵌入难题与分歧难题。

Expressivists aim at giving an account of normative concepts in the way that is distinct from analytical naturalism while remaining in the framework of philosophical naturalism.A pure expressivist s interpretation of an internal statement for legal positivism can be in favor of explaining the theoretical disagreement or genuine legal dispute,justifying a necessary connection between internal statement and speakers motivation,and supporting a weak assertion of the rule of recognition.The pure expressivism,however,is at risk for it lacks approaches to solve the embedding problem and accounts for internal-external statements disagreement.Alternatively,hybrid expressivists state that an internal statement has properties-ascribing as well as desire-like attitude expressing aspects.Unfortunately,hybrid expressivism could not commit that in every kind of normative statement,the desire-like attitudes can have a special kind of stability,so it fails to solve the embedding problem.A more persuasive strategy might be quasi-expressivism,which accepts that normative discourse normally expresses a desire-like attitude or conative state of mind,but this part of communication never enters into the meaning of the normative sentences,and only has a contingent connection with the descriptive aspect of normative judgment,instead,it delivers evaluative information through pragmatic implication.Thus,quasi-expressivism solves the embedding problem and disagreement problem simultaneously.