English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113648/144635 (79%)
Visitors : 51611015      Online Users : 445
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/140.119/80169


    Title: 由康德的應報論觀點出發思考台灣死刑存廢的爭論
    Other Titles: Kant’s Idea of Retributive Justice and a Reflection on the Controversy over the Death Penalty in Taiwan Society
    Authors: 陳欣白
    Chen, Hsin-Pai
    Contributors: 法學院
    Keywords: Immanuel Kantl;Categorical Imperative;Retributive Justice;Death Penalty
    Date: 2012-03-17
    Issue Date: 2015-12-31 10:09:54 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: The idea of retributive justice plays an essential role in discussing the aim of judicial penalties, among which Immanuel Kant’s notion is of particular concern. One reason is there seems a conceptual contradiction between Kant’s ethics and his political philosophy, which are two components of his practical philosophy. Especially the statement that the murder should be punished with the death is a categorical imperative makes Kant’s position obviously paradoxical: treating the death penalty as necessary while emphasizing the human dignity at the same time.This paper attempts to give a reasonable explanation for the above-mentioned puzzle: by illuminating the respectively coherent meaning of “categorical imperative”, “coercive power” and “humanity/moral personality” we can find that, just like what H.-G. Schmitz pointed out, Kant‘s admixture of two legitimacy-requirements, i.e. the legitimacy of the punishment itself and the legitimate way to punish, causes the incoherence between the whole context of his thought and its specific parts. As long as the admixture can be eliminated, we would reach the conclusion that not only Kant’s theory of retribution is with no preventive character at all, the recognition of retribution means not necessarily the endorsement of the death penalty also.The other attempt of this paper, though not thoroughly enough, is from the view of Kant’s retributive theory clarifying the focal points of the controversy over the death penalty in Taiwan society. I believe, backing to the classic texts and making the conceptual analysis is also an important work contributing to the consensus in the future.
    Relation: 後繼受時代的東亞法文化 : 東亞法哲學研討會. 第八屆
    主辦單位:國立政治大學法學院
    舉辦日期:2012.03.17-2012.03.18
    Data Type: conference
    Appears in Collections:[2012東亞法哲學研討會] 會議論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML21241View/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