道德和法律的连续性

Q1 Social Sciences
Re’em Segev
{"title":"道德和法律的连续性","authors":"Re’em Segev","doi":"10.1515/til-2021-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract According to an influential and intuitively appealing argument (the Continuity Argument), (1) morality is usually continuous, namely, a gradual change in one morally significant factor triggers a gradual change in another; (2) the law should usually track morality; (3) therefore, the law should often be continuous. This argument is illustrated by cases such as the following example: since the moral difference between a defensive action that is reasonable and one that is just short of being reasonable is small, the law should not impose a severe punishment when the action is almost reasonable and no punishment at all when the action is reasonable (as positive law sometimes does). In this Article, I consider two doubts regarding this argument. First, the premise that morality is continuous in such cases is incompatible with the common view that the moral status of actions is not continuous since there is an important difference between actions that are permissible and actions that are wrong— even if this difference is due to a difference that is very small, such as the one between an action whose consequences are the best and an action whose consequences are just slightly less good. This view extends also to the overall moral status of agents given the common assumption that it depends on the moral status of their actions. This is an important challenge that the Continuity Argument should confront. However, I argue that the best account of morality is more scalar than the common view in these respects. Therefore, I conclude that the first premise of the Continuity Argument is correct in this regard, although it is based on a minority view. The second doubt concerns the scope of the second premise: since there are reasons both in favor and against legal continuity, and the applicability and force of these reasons depend not only on various moral propositions but also on contingent non-moral facts, we often lack the evidence to determine the degree to which the law, at a certain place and time, should be continuous, and specifically that it should often be continuous.","PeriodicalId":39577,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Inquiries in Law","volume":"83 1","pages":"45 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Continuity in Morality and Law\",\"authors\":\"Re’em Segev\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/til-2021-0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract According to an influential and intuitively appealing argument (the Continuity Argument), (1) morality is usually continuous, namely, a gradual change in one morally significant factor triggers a gradual change in another; (2) the law should usually track morality; (3) therefore, the law should often be continuous. This argument is illustrated by cases such as the following example: since the moral difference between a defensive action that is reasonable and one that is just short of being reasonable is small, the law should not impose a severe punishment when the action is almost reasonable and no punishment at all when the action is reasonable (as positive law sometimes does). In this Article, I consider two doubts regarding this argument. First, the premise that morality is continuous in such cases is incompatible with the common view that the moral status of actions is not continuous since there is an important difference between actions that are permissible and actions that are wrong— even if this difference is due to a difference that is very small, such as the one between an action whose consequences are the best and an action whose consequences are just slightly less good. This view extends also to the overall moral status of agents given the common assumption that it depends on the moral status of their actions. This is an important challenge that the Continuity Argument should confront. However, I argue that the best account of morality is more scalar than the common view in these respects. Therefore, I conclude that the first premise of the Continuity Argument is correct in this regard, although it is based on a minority view. The second doubt concerns the scope of the second premise: since there are reasons both in favor and against legal continuity, and the applicability and force of these reasons depend not only on various moral propositions but also on contingent non-moral facts, we often lack the evidence to determine the degree to which the law, at a certain place and time, should be continuous, and specifically that it should often be continuous.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theoretical Inquiries in Law\",\"volume\":\"83 1\",\"pages\":\"45 - 85\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theoretical Inquiries in Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2021-0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Inquiries in Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2021-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

根据一个有影响力和直观吸引力的论点(连续性论点),(1)道德通常是连续的,即一个道德重要因素的逐渐变化会引发另一个道德重要因素的逐渐变化;(2)法律应经常追踪道德;(3)因此,法律应经常是连续的。这一论点可以通过以下例子来说明:由于合理的防御行为和不合理的防御行为之间的道德差异很小,当行为几乎是合理的时候,法律不应该施加严厉的惩罚,而当行为是合理的时候,法律不应该施加任何惩罚(正如实在法有时所做的那样)。在本文中,我对这一论点提出了两个疑问。首先,在这种情况下,道德是连续的这一前提与行为的道德地位不是连续的这一普遍观点是不相容的,因为在允许的行为和错误的行为之间存在着重要的差异——即使这种差异是由于非常小的差异造成的,比如结果最好的行为和结果稍差的行为之间的差异。这种观点也延伸到行动者的整体道德地位,因为它通常取决于他们行为的道德地位。这是连续性论证应该面对的一个重要挑战。然而,我认为,在这些方面,对道德的最佳描述比通常的观点更纯粹。因此,我的结论是,连续性论点的第一个前提在这方面是正确的,尽管它是基于少数人的观点。第二个疑问与第二个前提的范围有关:由于既有支持法律连续性的理由,也有反对法律连续性的理由,而且这些理由的适用性和效力不仅取决于各种道德命题,还取决于偶然的非道德事实,我们经常缺乏证据来确定法律在某一地点和时间应该是连续的程度,特别是它应该经常是连续的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Continuity in Morality and Law
Abstract According to an influential and intuitively appealing argument (the Continuity Argument), (1) morality is usually continuous, namely, a gradual change in one morally significant factor triggers a gradual change in another; (2) the law should usually track morality; (3) therefore, the law should often be continuous. This argument is illustrated by cases such as the following example: since the moral difference between a defensive action that is reasonable and one that is just short of being reasonable is small, the law should not impose a severe punishment when the action is almost reasonable and no punishment at all when the action is reasonable (as positive law sometimes does). In this Article, I consider two doubts regarding this argument. First, the premise that morality is continuous in such cases is incompatible with the common view that the moral status of actions is not continuous since there is an important difference between actions that are permissible and actions that are wrong— even if this difference is due to a difference that is very small, such as the one between an action whose consequences are the best and an action whose consequences are just slightly less good. This view extends also to the overall moral status of agents given the common assumption that it depends on the moral status of their actions. This is an important challenge that the Continuity Argument should confront. However, I argue that the best account of morality is more scalar than the common view in these respects. Therefore, I conclude that the first premise of the Continuity Argument is correct in this regard, although it is based on a minority view. The second doubt concerns the scope of the second premise: since there are reasons both in favor and against legal continuity, and the applicability and force of these reasons depend not only on various moral propositions but also on contingent non-moral facts, we often lack the evidence to determine the degree to which the law, at a certain place and time, should be continuous, and specifically that it should often be continuous.
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
Theoretical Inquiries in Law
Theoretical Inquiries in Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Theoretical Inquiries in Law is devoted to the application to legal thought of insights developed by diverse disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, economics, history and psychology. The range of legal issues dealt with by the journal is virtually unlimited, subject only to the journal''s commitment to cross-disciplinary fertilization of ideas. We strive to provide a forum for all those interested in looking at law from more than a single theoretical perspective and who share our view that only a multi-disciplinary analysis can provide a comprehensive account of the complex interrelationships between law, society and individuals
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信