法律帝國所謂"語義學之刺"到底是何意思? - 法學
By Steve
at 2008-11-08T00:42
at 2008-11-08T00:42
Table of Contents
只是隨手翻一下
《Law's Empire》 p.31
"Some legal philosophers offer a surprising answer. They say that
theoretical disagreement about the grounds of "law" must be a pretense
because the very meaning of the word "law" makes law depend on certain
specific criteria, and that any lawyer who rejected or challenged those
criteria would be speaking self-contradictory nonsense."
把法律的意義繫於特定語義規則的法理論,對於Dworkin而言都是法的語義學理論。
p.43
"If legal argument is mainly or even partly about pivotal cases, then
lawyers cannot all be using the same factual criteria for deciding when
propositions of law are true and false. Their arguments would be mainly
or partly about which criteria they should use. So the project of the
semantic theories, the project of digging out shared rules from a care-
ful study of what lawyers say and do, would be doomed to fail."
法的語義學理論是失敗的,他們都被語義學的刺給刺到了。
(法的語義學理論認為法律中真正的爭議都是經驗爭議,Dworkin認為真正的爭議
是理論爭議,不是考察經驗中的事實可以解決的)
詳細的內容還是要再看一次第一章會好一些。
※ 引述《fulyh (...)》之銘言:
: 請教法理學高手們....
: 我看了法律帝國(中譯版)之後,
: 實在是無法理解第二章第一節的內容為什麼要取標題跟"語義學"有關?
: 又為什麼提到"刺"?
: 內容方面,Dworkin怎麼說,我就怎麼記。Dworkin說前一章引起的災難性論證,
: 他稱之為語義學之刺。
: 但重點就是不懂標題為什麼取名為"語義學之刺"...是有什麼好成為"刺"的呢?....
: 煩請高首不吝說文解字一下...感恩不盡....
--
Tags:
法學
All Comments
Related Posts
法律帝國所謂"語義學之刺"到底是何意思?
By Damian
at 2008-11-07T01:53
at 2008-11-07T01:53
關於憲法的一些問題
By Jacob
at 2008-11-04T21:00
at 2008-11-04T21:00
請問"適法"的解釋
By Victoria
at 2008-11-03T21:11
at 2008-11-03T21:11
可以幫忙翻譯一下這段話嗎?
By Rae
at 2008-11-02T11:40
at 2008-11-02T11:40
可以幫忙翻譯一下這段話嗎?
By Charlie
at 2008-11-01T19:39
at 2008-11-01T19:39