论文部分内容阅读
在追求法律确定性的语言解释过程中,“应当”一词存在未曾警惕的意义分歧,表现为:(1)作为必为性规范的道义词,与“不得”“可以”指示的禁止性规范、授权性规范构成并列关系;(2)有时又被理解为与规范性、内在面向具有同一性,超越“不得”与“可以”;(3)一些语言哲学家却彻底质疑“应当”的哲学意义。借助语言哲学、道义逻辑学以及法理论资源,能够基本确立“应当”在法律规范体系中的形式核心地位;但“应当”概念有规范性“应当”和指令词“应当”之分,两种“应当”语义不同,语用上却可能交叉。
In the process of linguistic explanation of legal certainty, there is an unidentified divergence of meanings in terms of “ought to be:” (1) as a moral word that must be a norm, “Prohibition of norms, normative norms constitute a side-by-side relationship; (2) Sometimes understood as normative and internal oriented identity, beyond the” not “and” can “; (3) Some languages Philosophers have completely questioned the philosophical meaning of ”should“. With the aid of linguistic philosophy, moral logic and legal theory resources, we can basically establish the formal core status of ”ought“ in the system of legal norms. However, the notion of ”should“ has normative ”should“ and directives ” Should be divided into two parts and the two should be different in semantics but may be crossed in pragmatics.