“司法裁判的客观性”之辨析

An Discrimination of “the Objectivity of Adjudication”

司法裁判的客观性涉及裁判的逻辑构造与"客观性"的诸层次。从裁判的逻辑构造上看,裁判包括"结果"和"过程"两个面向,后者又可以被分为"发现过程"和"证立过程"。从"客观性"的诸层次上看,客观性主要体现为形而上、认识论与语义学三个层次。在形而上层次上,作为"结果"的裁判的客观性呈现为中度客观性;在认识论层次上,作为"发现过程"、"证立过程"的裁判的客观性要求"超越个体间的可识别性"和"不偏不倚";在语义学层次上,作为"结果陈述"的裁判的客观性体现为"真值—能力"。通过对司法裁判的客观性进行反思可知,司法裁判中的"正确答案"具有"K-P语义学"理论蕴涵的中度客观性,司法"直觉"及偏差要受到"规训",说理要有限度地充分展开。而法治恰恰要求俱备能够证立中度客观性的理由,可见,法治是一项需要持续努力的整体性事业。

The objectivity of adjudication concerns the logic structure of adjudication and many hierarchies of the objectivity. From the point of the logic structure, we can see that the adjudication involves the two dimensions of both outcome and process, and the latter also involves both the process of discovery and the process of justification. From the point of the genre, we can see that there are three types of objectivity, namely metaphysical objectivity, epistemological objectivity and semantic objectivity. Upon comparative study, we can get the conclusion that the objectivity of adjudication outcome in the sense of metaphysics is modest, the objectivity of adjudication as the process of discovery and the process of justification in the sense of epistemology requires the trans-individual discernibility and impartiality, and the objectivity of adjudication as statements of outcome in the sense of semantics consists in the truth-aptitude. 'K-P semantics' entails a concept of modest objectivity, the right answer in adjudication is modestly objective, judicial 'intuition' and biases must be monitored, and the argumentation should be fully developed to a limited extent. Thus, the rule of law is an overall enterprise that requires sustained efforts.