德国刑法理论与司法中的道德困境:经典案例与现代变体》。

IF 0.9 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Frank Peter Schuster
{"title":"德国刑法理论与司法中的道德困境:经典案例与现代变体》。","authors":"Frank Peter Schuster","doi":"10.1007/s10609-023-09452-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dilemma scenarios have always been among the most common problems of moral philosophy and criminal law theory. One only has to contemplate the Plank of Carneades, the classic thought experiment whereby two shipwrecked people's only hope of rescue is a floating board that can only be occupied by one person. Other scenarios are Welzel's switchman case and the well-known Trolley Problem. In most of the debated cases the death of one or more people is absolutely unavoidable. The protagonists do not cause the situation but are fated to come into conflict. The focus of this article is on one recent and one future variant. First, the prioritization of medical aid (also known as \"triage\") is the subject of intense debate, because the COVID-19 pandemic posed a permanent risk of a temporary collapse in the health system in several countries. Situations had arisen whereby some patients can no longer be treated owing to lack of capacity. It can be asked whether a decision to treat may be based on which patients have a better chance of survival, whether reckless previous behaviour may play a role, and whether a treatment, once started, may be discontinued in favour of another. Second, dilemma scenarios are also one of the last remaining (largely unresolved) legal difficulties of autonomous vehicles. Never before has a machine been given the power to determine the life or death of human beings. Even though the automotive industry promises that such situations will hardly ever occur, the problem could prove to be a tangible obstacle to acceptance and innovation. The article offers solutions for those distinct scenarios, but it is also intended to demonstrate the underlying legal concepts of German law: namely, the tripartite analysis of criminal law and the idea of human dignity as a fundamental principle of the German constitution.</p>","PeriodicalId":43773,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Law Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9936117/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coping with Moral Dilemmas in German Criminal Law Theory and Justice: Classical Cases and Modern Variants.\",\"authors\":\"Frank Peter Schuster\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10609-023-09452-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Dilemma scenarios have always been among the most common problems of moral philosophy and criminal law theory. One only has to contemplate the Plank of Carneades, the classic thought experiment whereby two shipwrecked people's only hope of rescue is a floating board that can only be occupied by one person. Other scenarios are Welzel's switchman case and the well-known Trolley Problem. In most of the debated cases the death of one or more people is absolutely unavoidable. The protagonists do not cause the situation but are fated to come into conflict. The focus of this article is on one recent and one future variant. First, the prioritization of medical aid (also known as \\\"triage\\\") is the subject of intense debate, because the COVID-19 pandemic posed a permanent risk of a temporary collapse in the health system in several countries. Situations had arisen whereby some patients can no longer be treated owing to lack of capacity. It can be asked whether a decision to treat may be based on which patients have a better chance of survival, whether reckless previous behaviour may play a role, and whether a treatment, once started, may be discontinued in favour of another. Second, dilemma scenarios are also one of the last remaining (largely unresolved) legal difficulties of autonomous vehicles. Never before has a machine been given the power to determine the life or death of human beings. Even though the automotive industry promises that such situations will hardly ever occur, the problem could prove to be a tangible obstacle to acceptance and innovation. The article offers solutions for those distinct scenarios, but it is also intended to demonstrate the underlying legal concepts of German law: namely, the tripartite analysis of criminal law and the idea of human dignity as a fundamental principle of the German constitution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43773,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Criminal Law Forum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9936117/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Criminal Law Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-023-09452-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Law Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-023-09452-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

两难情景一直是道德哲学和刑法理论中最常见的问题之一。我们只需思考一下 "卡尼阿德的浮板"(Plank of Carneades),这是一个经典的思想实验,在这个实验中,两个遇船难的人唯一的获救希望就是一块只能由一个人占据的浮板。其他还有韦尔泽尔的开关人案例和著名的电车问题。在大多数争论不休的案例中,一人或多人的死亡是绝对不可避免的。主角们并没有造成这种情况,而是命中注定要发生冲突。本文的重点是近期和未来的一个变数。首先,医疗援助的优先顺序(也称为 "分流")是激烈辩论的主题,因为 COVID-19 大流行给一些国家的卫生系统带来了暂时崩溃的永久风险。出现了一些病人因缺乏能力而无法再得到治疗的情况。可以提出这样的问题:是否可以根据哪些病人有更好的生存机会来决定是否进行治疗,以前的鲁莽行为是否会起作用,以及是否可以在开始治疗后停止治疗而改用另一种治疗方法。其次,两难情景也是自动驾驶汽车最后剩下的(基本上尚未解决的)法律难题之一。在此之前,机器从未被赋予决定人类生死的权力。尽管汽车行业承诺这种情况几乎不会发生,但这个问题可能会成为人们接受和创新的实际障碍。本文为这些不同的情况提供了解决方案,但同时也旨在展示德国法律的基本法律概念:即刑法的三方分析和作为德国宪法基本原则的人类尊严理念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Coping with Moral Dilemmas in German Criminal Law Theory and Justice: Classical Cases and Modern Variants.

Dilemma scenarios have always been among the most common problems of moral philosophy and criminal law theory. One only has to contemplate the Plank of Carneades, the classic thought experiment whereby two shipwrecked people's only hope of rescue is a floating board that can only be occupied by one person. Other scenarios are Welzel's switchman case and the well-known Trolley Problem. In most of the debated cases the death of one or more people is absolutely unavoidable. The protagonists do not cause the situation but are fated to come into conflict. The focus of this article is on one recent and one future variant. First, the prioritization of medical aid (also known as "triage") is the subject of intense debate, because the COVID-19 pandemic posed a permanent risk of a temporary collapse in the health system in several countries. Situations had arisen whereby some patients can no longer be treated owing to lack of capacity. It can be asked whether a decision to treat may be based on which patients have a better chance of survival, whether reckless previous behaviour may play a role, and whether a treatment, once started, may be discontinued in favour of another. Second, dilemma scenarios are also one of the last remaining (largely unresolved) legal difficulties of autonomous vehicles. Never before has a machine been given the power to determine the life or death of human beings. Even though the automotive industry promises that such situations will hardly ever occur, the problem could prove to be a tangible obstacle to acceptance and innovation. The article offers solutions for those distinct scenarios, but it is also intended to demonstrate the underlying legal concepts of German law: namely, the tripartite analysis of criminal law and the idea of human dignity as a fundamental principle of the German constitution.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Criminal Law Forum
Criminal Law Forum Multiple-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Criminal Law Forum is a peer-review journal dedicated to the advancement of criminal law theory, practice, and reform throughout the world. Under the direction of an international editorial board, Criminal Law Forum serves the global community of criminal law scholars and practitioners through the publication of original contributions and the dissemination of noteworthy public documents. Criminal Law Forum is published pursuant to an agreement with the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, based in Vancouver, British Columbia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信