English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113311/144292 (79%)
Visitors : 50923457      Online Users : 910
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/98011


    Title: 邏輯推斷抑或意志行為？——對凱爾森晚期規範理論中一個命題的批判
    Other Titles: Logical Inference or Act of Will? Critique on a Thesis in Hans Kelsen`s Late Theory of Norms
    Authors: 雷磊
    Lei, Lei
    Keywords: 邏輯推斷;道義語句;作為真值的效力;邏輯證立
    Logical Inference;Validity as Truth;Deontic Sentence;Logical Justification
    Date: 2012-12
    Issue Date: 2016-06-17 16:43:54 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 漢斯‧凱爾森的晚期規範理論處理的一個核心問題是規範與邏輯的關係。其主要主張可被表述為「不可推斷命題」，即，一般性規範與相應的個別規範之間並不存在邏輯推斷關係。這一觀念主要得到了意志論據與不適格論據的支持，但兩者都不成立。意志論據混淆了兩種規範的概念，因而犯了「打擊錯誤」。作為道義語句的規範具有語義效力（真值），它包含著邏輯向度。在規範三段論中，一般性道義語句與個別道義語句間彼此處於邏輯關係之中，後者具有真值傳遞的功能，故而不適格論據同樣是失敗的。此外，「邏輯推斷」應當正確地被理解為「邏輯證立」。
    Hans Kelsen’s late theory of norms deals with the relation of norms and logic. One of his main concerns is expressed by the Non-Inferential Thesis, i.e. the relation between a general and a corresponding individual norm cannot be characterized as a logical inference. This opinion is supported chiefly by the Argument of Will and the Argument of Non-Qualification. But neither of them are tenable. The Argument of Will is based on a confusion of two conceptions of norms, thus it mistakes in attack. Norms as deontic sentences have semantic validity as truth which contains the logical dimension. The general and individual deontic sentences in a normative syllogism are proved to stand in logical relation to each other, which assumes the function of transference of truth. So the Argument of Non- Qualification also fails. “Logical inference” should be properly understood as “logical justification.”
    Relation: 法學評論, 130,159-198頁
    Chengchi law review
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    130-3.pdf861KbAdobe PDF2342View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback