| 468 | 3 | 50 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
当代自然法的发展不仅在理论层面上再次成为一种有竞争力的学说，而且还在现实的政治和法律实践层面上表现出强大的影响力，因此也引发了与之相对立的其他学说的警惕和批判。针对一种立足实用主义和现实主义的法律理论，当代自然法理论辩护了自然法理论中下述三个基本主张，一是认为自然法理论并不必然以超验存在者的存在为前提，只是自然法的研究可能会导向一种对于超验存在的探究；二是自然法理论并不必然是保守的；三是当代自然法理论的发展强调，调整我们的法律规范，除了某些根植于自然从而隶属于自然法范畴之内的规范之外，大部分实在法都是社会建构的产物，因此，它的整套理论很好地融合了规范中的自然和社会建构这两个要素。
Abstract：The development of the natural law theory in contemporary world has raised many critiques from other camps, especially the Tamanaha's critique which is based upon his liberalism and pragmatism.This article shows that his critiques are groundless. Firstly, natural law theory not necessarily presupposes some theological stance. Secondly, natural law theory is not necessarily illiberal, on the contrary, it absorbs many elements and claims of liberalism. Thirdly, natural law theory accepts that some legal norms are the results of social construction. So it claims that there are some basic principles that are rooted in human nature, and should not be considered as constructed or posited, but as “natural”.
(1)Adrian Vermeule,Common Good Constitutionalism,Cambridge:Polity,2022.
(2)此书的副标题就是“重新发现古典法律传统”,在沃缪勒看来,这一古典法律传统就是以阿奎那式自然法学说为核心的古典自然法传统,对这一传统中的一些核心要义的大体勾勒,参见该书导论部分“导论:回归古典法律传统”,Adrian Vermeule,Common Good Constitutionalism,Cambridge:Polity,2022,pp.1-25.
(3)沃缪勒没有使用“活的立宪主义”一词,而是将之称为“进步主义”(progressivism)。See Adrian Vermeule,Common Good Constitutionalism,Cambridge:Polity,2022,p.117-133.
(4)相关的评论参见Randy Barnett,“Common-Good Constitutionalism Reveals the Dangers of Any Non-originalist Approach to the Constitution”,The A tlantic,2020,https://www.theatlantic.co m/ideas/archive/202 0/04/dangers-any-nonoriginalist-approach-constitution/609382/;Richard Epstein,"The Problem with Common Good Constitutionalism'",Hoover I nest,2020,https://www.hoover.org/research/problem-common-goodconstitutionalism[https://perma.cc/PQ88-UXDY];Jack Balkin,Common Good Versus Public Good",Balkinization,2020,https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/04/common-good-versuspublic-good.html[https://perma.cc/QA6P-YRBB].
(5)John Tasioulas,"Law as the Art of Justice:On Vermeule's Common Good Constitutionalism",January 18,2023.(内部讨论稿)
(6)比如芝加哥大学法学院法理学教授莱特,Brian Leiter,"Politics by Other Means:The Jurisprudence of'Common Good Constitutionalism'",University of Chicago Law Review,2023,90(6):1685-1717.
(7)Brian Tamanaha,Beware Illiberal Natural Law,May,2022.
(8)Stuart Banner,The Decline of Natural Law,Oxford:Oxford University press,2021;Jonathan Crowe,Natural Law and the Nature of Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2019;Tom Angier(ed.),The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Ethics,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2019;Andrew Forsyth,Common Law and Natural Law in A merican,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2018;Duke George and Robert George(eds.),The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Jurisprude nce,Cambridge:C ambridge University Press,2017;Richard Helmholz,Natural Law in Court,Cambridge and Massachusetts:Harvard University Press,2015.
(9)Brian Tamanaha,Beware Illiberal Natural Law,May,2022,p.27.
(10)Neil Gorsuch于2001年在菲尼斯的指导下完成有关安乐死的博士论文,并获得牛津大学哲学博士学位,该文后以《辅助自杀与安乐死的未来》一书在普林斯顿大学出版社出版。See Neil Gorsuch,The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,Princeton:Princeton University Press,2006.
(11)Brian Tamanaha,Beware Illiberal Natural Law,May,2022,pp.17-18.
(12)“多布斯案”的判决结果推翻了沿用五十多年的“罗伊案”,使反对堕胎再次成为法律上的立场。对此,至少就自由派看来,这在很大程度上是自然法阵营的一次胜利,更是保守派的一次胜利。
(13)KGS 6:314-315.
(14)格劳秀斯著有《基督教的真理》(The Truth of The Christian Religion/De veritate religionis Christianne)一书;洛克在其晚年著有《基督教的合理性》(Vindications of the Reas onableness of Christianity)一书。对于洛克政治思想背景的考察,可参见Jeremy Waldron,Cod,Locke and Equality:Christian Foundations in Locke's Political Thought,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2002.
(15)Brian Tamanaha,Beware Illiberal Natural Law,May,2022,p.24.
(16)Ibid.,p.103.
(17)有关意志论自然法的论述,参见Francis Oakley,"Medieval Theories of Natural Law:William of Ockham and The Significance of the Voluntarist Tradition",Natural Law Forum,1961,6:65-83.
(18)Jeremy Waldron,"What is Natural Law Like?"in John Keown and Robert George(eds.),Reason,Morality and Law:The Philosophy of John Finnis,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2013.
(19)Aquinas,S.T,Ⅰ-Ⅱ,Q.91;相关的阐述参见J.Budziszewski,Commentary on Thomas Aquinas's Treatise on Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2014,xviii。
(20)Davis Novak,Natural Law:A Jewish,Christian and Islamic Trialogue,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2014,p.6.
(21)John Finnis,Natural Law and Natural Rights,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2011,p.49.
(22)参见《自然法与自然权利》前言部分对于各篇章之角色的论述,John Finnis,Natural Law and Natural Rights,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2011,v.
(23)Brian Tamanaha,Beware Illiberal Natural Law,May,2022,p.25.
(24)当然,这并不是说,自然法的哲学思考“必然”引向对于超验存在者的探究,比如,在当代自然法的思想谱系中,就有一些立足于无神论的自然法学说,比如迈克·摩尔(Michael Moore)所持的某种类柏拉图式的自然法立场,参见Michael Moore,"Good without God",in Robert George(ed.),Natural Law,Liberalism and Morality,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002.
(25)同样的说法可参见[英]菲尼斯:《自然法理论》,吴彦编译,商务印书馆2016年版,第161页。
(26)关于他们两人的分歧可参见Robert George,"The Concept of Public Morality",in Robert George,The Clash of Orthodoxies,Wilmington and Delaware:ISI Books,2001,pp.105-109.
(27)阿奎那认为政府或国家的主要目的是“世俗和平”,它只能针对人的外在行为予以强制:“因为人法的目的是国家的世俗的和平(temporalis tranquilitas civitatis),法律是通过对外在行为的强制性的禁止来达致这个目的的,因为这些恶会阻碍国家的和平状态。”Aquinas,S.T,Ⅰ-Ⅱ,Q.98,A.1.
(28)John Finnis,"Virtue and C.onstitution",in John Finnis,Human Rights and Common Good,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2011.
(29)菲尼斯撰写了两篇讨论“人之优先性”的论文,一篇是撰写于2000年的“论人之优先性”,参见John Finnis,"The Priority of Persons(2000)",in John Finnis,Intention and Identity,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2011;另一篇是2013年撰写的“人之优先性再谈”,参见John Finnis,"The Priority of Persons Revisited",The American Journal of Jurisprudence,2013 58(1):45-62.当代自然法理论对于人之尊严的讨论,可参见Patrick Lee&Robert P.George,"Human Dignity and Natural Law",in Tom Angier,Iain Benson,and Mark Retter(eds.),The Cambridge Handbook of Natural Law and Human Rights,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2023.
(30)关于这个问题,可参见John Finnis的名文“有限政府"(Limited Govermant).该文后被收入Robert George主编的《自然法、自由主义与道德》(Natural Law,Lieralism and Morality,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002)一书,取名“自然法理论是否可与有限政府相兼容?”。在这篇文章中,菲尼斯对自然法传统中的有限政府理论进行了全面的辩护。
(31)Jacques Maritain,"Introduction",in UNESCO(ed.),Human Rights:Comme nts and Inte rp retation,1948.
(32)对笛卡尔的此种二元论在伦理和政治哲学中的表现的批判,可参见Patrick Lee and Robert George,Body-Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2008.
(33)对于这一问题更详尽的讨论,可参见吴彦:《心智与政治秩序》,商务印书馆2023年版。
(34)现代诸多政治学说,包括洛克的、康德的政治学说,在其诞生之初就致力于回应现代早期的绝对主义(Absolutism),而就以亚里士多德—托马斯主义哲学为核心的古典自然法传统来讲,其以共同善为核心而确立起来的有关正宗政体和变态政体、政治式统治和奴役式统治的区分,在根本意义上就致力于回应专制和独裁,相关的论述可参见[法]耶夫·西蒙:《权威的性质与功能》,吴彦译,商务印书馆2020年版。
(35)沃尔夫在其所著的《自然法自由主义》一书中将这一点阐述地更为清晰:“自由主义的第三个有问题的倾向就是削弱了家庭的稳定性。”参见Christopher Wolff,Natural Law Liberalism,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.213-214.
(36)对于至善论在道德和政治哲学中的表现的论述,可参见Steven Wall,"Perfectionism in Moral and Political Philosophy",in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,2017,https://plato.stanford.edu/entrie s/perfectionism-moral/.
(38)Christopher Wolff,Natural Law Liberalism,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2006.
(38)Brian Tamanaha,Beware Illiberal Natural Law,May,2022,p.29.
(39)Brian Tamanaha,Beware Illiberal Natural Law,May,2022,pp.74-75.塔玛纳哈在他的《一种现实主义的法律理论》一书中比较清晰地阐述了他自己的法律及哲学立场,他将之称为“现实主义/实在论”(realism),这种“现实主义/实在论”的要点主要包括以下几点:(1)认为法律在根本意义上受历史和社会的影响,所以必须根据法律的功能及其后果来加以看待;(2)自然主义,亦即一种社会的科学实在论,根据一些自然属性和要求来看待人;(3)通过经验来理解法律;(4)实用主义。See Brian Tamanaha,A Realistic Theory of Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2017,pp.2-3.
(40)相关的说法可参见菲尼斯有关惩罚之目的及其形式与幅度的论述,John Finnis,"The Restoration of Retribution”,in John Fnnis,Human Rights and Common Good,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2011,p.115.
(41)Jennifer Fery,"Neo-Aristotelian Ethical Naturalism",in To Angier(ed.),The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Ethics,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2019.
基本信息:
DOI：10.14167/j.zjss.2023.11.005
中图分类号:D909.1
引用信息:
[1]吴彦.当代自然法中的政治理论——兼驳塔玛纳哈对自然法的批判[J].浙江社会科学,2023,No.327(11):38-47+156.DOI:10.14167/j.zjss.2023.11.005.
2023-11-15
2023-11-15