The Outline of Theory of the Rationality of Adjudication

Cai Lin

2008-01-01

Abstract:The theory of the rationality of adjudication is an important area of legal theory.It is an open and practice-oriented topic area.The rationality of adjudication includes right reason and inter-subject consent.The

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The Complex of Theory of Rawls' Education Equity and the Criticism of Its Principle of Methodology

Liu Tongfang

2012-01-01

Educational Research

Abstract:As a principle of methodology , the theory of Rawls' education equity is based on his theory script of justice , and exists insurmountable plight of the theory. The premise of his theory is built on a pure idealistic hypothesis and the understanding of human and human nature , and it is abstract. His perspective of the theory is under the provisions of a uniform scale to promote everyone's fairness and equality , and it is one-sided ; His end-result of the theory is to pursue the maximum consensus of justice of truth on distribution by the tendency of equalitarianism , and it is Utopian. We should take critical views to the theory of Rawls' education equity , be vigilant of the complex of it and prevent the judgment which is not in accord with reality on account of blindly faith.
ON THE RATIONALITY AND THE LEGITIMACY OF THE PLANNING ADMINISTRATION

Yaping WEI

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1002-1329.2001.06.008

2001-01-01

Abstract:There are some internal conflicts of the rationality in the planning administration. This paper suggests that these conflicts exhibit as the contradictions between t he legitimacy and the justification of the administrative activity. These contradictions, though, can be unified in some institutions. It is difficult to judge the rationality by the planning admi nistration. To some extents, it can only be expressed as the democratic compromise in the process of the administration.
On the Ideal Rationality of the University

眭依凡

2013-01-01

Abstract:Reviewing the history of the university,it explores such two questions as the following,why stress the ideal rationality of the university,and what ideal rationality of the university should be held.The former question is to explain that the ideal rationality of the university is a practical problem;the latter is to answer what ideal rationality should be established and upheld from three aspects of the orientation of cultivating talents,academic freedom and social responsibility.
Between Abstract Theory and Plain Rationality:A Review of Sunstein’s "Incompletely Theorized Agreements"

Zhou Wei

Abstract:As a key word of Professor Sunstein’s theory about constitutional law and politics,"incompletely theorized agreements" means that people who accept the principle need not to identify with its extension in particular cases.Given that all theories inevitably have their own limitations,"incompletely theorized agreements" do not cover all cases,and are more incapable of altering the reality of universality of political conflicts and the diversity of social consciousness,but it plays an important role in a pluralistic society.

Law,Political Science,Economics
Outline Comment on Parties-Judge Arguementation Theory——A View of Procedure Construction Based on Arguementation Theory of Law

Hou-sheng DUAN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13806/j.cnki.issn1008-7095.2011.05.009

2011-01-01

Abstract:The current study of civil procedure construction,in perspective of researching methodology,can be classified into two mindset categories:rationalism and empiricism.But the dilemmas of argumentation suffered by these two thinking patterns,the former one confronting Munchhausen Dilemma and the latter one Hume's problem,have not been solved yet.Such problems are embodied in our study of civil procedure construction as well.In order to resolve or avoid the above dilemmas,the argumentation route of discourse theory of law which was raised by J(u|¨)rgen Habermas on the basis of his Communicative Action Theory,that is,participants' common rational choice, could be considered for reference as ultimate cornerstone for construction of due process.
Reflective Judgement and Prudential Rationality: A Contribution to an Inclusive Practical Application of Law

Maria Lúcia de Paula Oliveira

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-019-09666-9

2019-11-06

Abstract:Abstract Hannah Arendt has developed a theory of the importance of judgment of taste for political manners, founded on the Kantian aesthetic theory. Nowadays this theory is considered a current theoretical reference for establishing a political way to reconcile the demands of the radicalization of deliberative democracy with the need for political inclusion (Iris Marion Young, Seyla Benhabib). Albena Azmanova in her The Scandal of Reason: A Critical Theory of Political Judgment proposes an inclusive political rhetoric. The political theory founded on judgment is based on Kant’s philosophy; it was developed by Arendt and has greatly influenced the current debate, as an alternative theory in which the moral basis of law can be more sensitive to human contexts; a universalist theory more adequate for dealing with the tragic dimension of human life. The theory of political judgment uses the concepts of reflective judgment and ‘enlarged thought’ as its main concepts. As a starting point, a theory like this considers the singular judgments of justice that each person makes. The background, therefore, is not a rational foundation of principles, but the capacity of rational beings to make judgments. This post-metaphysical theory of law, based on a theory of judgment, is a critique of legal positivism, but presents itself as an alternative to the idealistic theory of law. But this theoretical project has received some criticism related to the adequacy of Arendt’s rereading of Kantian philosophy and her attempt to approximate Kant’s reflective judgment to the Aristotelian concept of phronêsis. Some critics, such as Bryan Garsten, believe that Kant’s rhetoric of public reason diminished and displaced the prudential faculty of judgment that Arendt is to be interested in reviving. Arendt’s attempt to find a theory of judgment in Kant’s aesthetic theory is not successful, in Garsten’s view. Our purpose is to show that a critical theory of judicial judgment is not only possible, but necessary; Arendt’s theory of judgment offers an important contribution to a critical theory of judicial judgment, particularly one devoted to the construction of a legal theory that prioritizes a politics of social inclusion. This theory proposes a critical approach to the project of the procedural conception of democracy, since it can mask social exclusion. An adequate understanding of judicial argumentation cannot forget that it happens in a rhetorical context: it is not only important what a discourse says, but how it says it. The radicalization of deliberative democracy supposes a revision of the ways judicial deliberation is thought: not by reference to universal or at least general principles, but taking into consideration what is ‘critically relevant’, with a view to remedying social injustice (following Azmanova).
The Theoretical Prospect in the Age of Rights

ZHANG Wen-xian,YAO Jian-zong

2005-01-01

Abstract:The research on rights is a fundamental task for Jurisprudence and it makes the theoretical prospect in the age of rights.In reviewing and reflecting on the rights research in China since the open and reform,four stages can be classified into,namely,the breakthrough of the class-struggle paradigm,the hail of rights and duty as the basic categories of Jurisprudence,the establishment of right-oriented paradigm,and the development of right-oriented paradigm.The research on rights is to be further promoted and perfected with the construction of Socialism in China.
Return to Abstract Theory of Right of Action

Yan Renqun

2011-01-01

Abstract:It has been insisted that right of action should have some conditions, but attaching one or more conditions to right of action would make it unworthy of its name, meaningless, and paradoxical. Those defects are severe and fatal. All the theories of conditional right of action should be abandoned, even if they regard right of action as a human right or argue it to be a constitutional right. At the beginning of litigation, court is in the state of ignorance. It must accept a case unconditionally and hear all the procedural and substantial issues in due process. For this reason, theory of abstract right of action, which does not annex any requirement to right of action, has inherent rationality. Most of criticism to it is unreasonable. It can strongly sustain remedy to right of action and truly highlight the defect of setting conditions for filing and accepting a case. Theory of right of demanding judicial action does not attach requirement to right of action either, but it is a revisionary abstract theory of right of action, which makes up the defect of the theory of abstract right of action and has more practical significance. By the two kinds of abstract theory, we can clarify the relationship between right of action and condition of making substantial judgment, right to judicial verdict. The right of action contains only two kinds of right, i. e. , unconditional right to bring an action, and right of demanding impartial judicial trial. We should wipe off the heavy burden on right of action exerted by theories of conditional right of action and return to abstract theory of right of action.
On Logical Justification of Legal Rationality

Xiong Minghui

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19862/j.cnki.xsyk.2007.05.005

2007-01-01

Abstract:Legal argument is the only bridge to legal rationality.Whether a legal argument is good or not must depend on:1) the supporting strength from premises to conclusion;2) the acceptability of premises;3) the relevance between premises and conclusion;and 4) the acceptability of conclusion.A legal argument is plausible or defeasible in nature,i.e.,a conclusion is not follows from true premises but from acceptable ones.The challenge that legal realists have aimed at the logical foundation of legal argument shows that we can not logically justify a good legal argument only by traditional(formal or deductive) logic.In this paper,we introduce the RSA standard developed by informal logician such as Ralph H.Johnson and J.Anthony Blair on the basis of non-monotonic logic,and show from informal logical perspectives what a good legal argument is,and further logically justify legal rationality.
Rationality and Decisional Autonomy

Jonathan Pugh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198858584.003.0003

2020-04-01

Abstract:This chapter explains the role that theoretical and practical rationality play in decisional autonomy. The author contrasts his rationalist approach with other prominent rationalist theories of autonomy in bioethics developed by Rebecca Walker and Julian Savulescu. He suggests that one way in which both of these theories fall short is that they fail to offer a deep explanation of why we should trust that our evaluative judgements are the seat of autonomous decision-making. In order to provide such an explanation, in the second half of the chapter, the author situates his rationalist account in the literature on the philosophy of action. The discussion suggests that coherence theories of personal autonomy can offer this kind of explanation, and argues that supplementing such theories with considerations of theoretical rationality and an objectivist account of reasons can help to forestall some objections to such an approach.
Return to Reason

Michael G. Titelbaum

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198829775.003.0011

2019-10-17

Abstract:This chapter discusses responses to the author’s “Rationality’s Fixed Point (or: In Defense of Right Reason).” Among other things, the chapter: explains how the author understands rationality; explains why akrasia is irrational; intuitively overviews the argument from the Akratic Principle to the Fixed Point Thesis; explains why you can’t avoid this argument by distinguishing the rational from the reasonable, ideal rationality from everyday rationality, or substantive from structural norms; responds to the suggestion that misleading higher-order evidence creates rational dilemmas; explains why the Fixed Point Thesis doesn’t assume objectivist or externalist notions of rationality; dismisses complaints about agents who aren’t able to “figure out” what’s rational; then responds to an objection that peer disagreement undermines doxastic justification. Finally, the chapter modifies the author’s steadfast position on peer disagreement to take into account cases in which peer disagreement rationally affects an agent’s first-order opinions without affecting higher-order ones.
On the Positive Analysis of the Justice

Bai Jianjun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-9428.2007.01.025

2007-01-01

Abstract:More and more obvious limitation of the simple rational and logic analysis has emerged in juristic study, and it requires the demonstrative method in judicial practice. The positive analysis method is the knowledge how to obtain the knowledge, and the process and way to get a research effort. The positive analysis emphasizes consciousness of three aspects of sample, quantitatification and half-awareness, and three conditions of theoretical resource, case collection and quantitative analysis manner.
On the Reflective Equilibrium: Its Meaning and Limitation

LI Zhijiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-2815.2006.04.018

2006-01-01

Abstract:In the West,foundationalism is the dominant method in the long history of ethical reasoning and moral justification.But after the Enlightenment,this method has been constantly criticized.Under this circumstance,Rawls put forward a new criterion of rationality: coherentism.And he employed a new method of moral justification: reflective equilibrium.The use of the method helped him in the success of his theory of justice,and it is enlightening.But the method has its limitations.
The Public Deciding Force of Administrative Action and Impairment of Public Affairs

Kui Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-1707.2006.05.006

2006-01-01

Abstract:The theory for presumed validity of administrative action has never deviated from the administrative law scholars' vision field during the past twenty years' development. However, as regards this imported theory, there have always been two trends among the academics. One is reliance on transplantation in terms of the relationship between transplantation and self-construction. The other is emphasis on principles in terms of the relationship between principles and techniques. Actually, on the value norm, this theory could be renarrated to fit the democratic polity. On the technical norm, its claim that to defy the administrative action with presumed validity may commit the interference with public function could also be supported by the element theory of the action of interference with public function in the criminal law. Therefore, to get rid of the reliance on transplantation and the negligence of technical norms is not only an inevitable road for the rebirth of this theory, but also a direction of further efforts even if we decide to abandon this theory.
The Formation and Progress of the Theory of Shrink of Administrative Discretion:From the Perspective of Administration to Prevent Dangers

Wang Guisong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-0221.2008.04.008

2008-01-01

Abstract:The theory of administrative discretionary shrink is to restrict administrative discretion and judge the legality of administrative discretion included action and nonfeasance. The theory came from Germany's administrative law in 1920s and was introduced into Japan's administrative law. China's courts also apply the theory. This theory admits values of administrative discretion and in some special situations, it compels administrative discretion shrink to zero and makes the discretion become obligated and fettered. The rationality and vital force of the theory comes from limiting administrative expediency considerations into rational boundary.
Methods on Rhetorical Proof——Discussion on Two Judgments

CAI Lin

2006-01-01

Abstract:The Article discusses the influence of rhetoric for judges to argue his judgments through analyzing the argumentative structures in two judicial documents. It is obvious that not only judges evoked the audience's emotion perfectly with rhetorical skills but also rhetoric played an integrant role in argumentation. Besides, the rationality of rhetorical argument is based on the pragmatic rule.
Possibility and Restriction of Coherence in Legal Argumentation

CAI Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16290/j.cnki.1674-5205.2008.03.005

2008-01-01

Abstract:There are three coherence theories in legal field:coherence in legal argumentation,coherence in legal system,legal coherentism,which combined can analyze judicial practice well.The binary of narrative coherence and normative coherence is the premise to discuss the function of the coherence theories in judicial practice.Narrative coherence keeps the basic epistemology principles,while normative coherence reflects judge's practical reason.Found-herentism gives the formal standard to cognize the fact in narrative coherence,while explanatory or constructive coherence in normative coherence reveal judge's belief and ethical principles,which is not a kind of distorted pragmatism but a valid way to assemble holistic legal propositions.Hence,legal argumentation is near to the epistemological reasonableness and rational practice.
Political Rationality and Political Science

吕嘉

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-462x.2003.03.009

2003-01-01

Abstract:The basic feature of political rationality is its interpretation of the theoretical system i.e.,the ideology in the sense of form;and in the sense of feature it is group rationality with class interest and country interest as its feature.The nature of political rationality is the dialectical unity of the value-rationality,the theoretical rationality,the metaphysical rationality,the practical rationality and the instrumental rationality. the value-rationality of the political rationality, the political science must judge the value-nature of political rationality which control man's political behavior. that is to say, the political science has not only the theory of political rationality─theory of ideology,but also has the theory of value that can form the value-standard for its value judgment.
Between Principles and Policies: Ronald Dworkin and Constructing an Ideal Jurist

ZHANG Guo-qing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942x.2005.02.017

2005-01-01

Abstract:uncertainty, confusion, and disorder are serious matters among contemporary Chinese lawyers and jurists community. It brings about a problematic, ″how should an ideal jurist image be set up?″ In this respect, American legal and political philosopher Ronald Dworkin provides such an ideal image and gives this ideal lawyer a ringing name, ″Hercules″, who has uncommon wisdom and great authority to deal with hard cases. Comparing with some other contemporary jurists' legal theories, this paper discusses the main merits and lacks of Dworkin's jurisprudence and how he constructs such an ideal jurist.Firstly, In light of interpreting Dworkin's main works,Dworkin wants lawyers have strict sanction of lawyers society. This sanction at first should manifest such an idea, when lawyers discuss constitutional cases, they should take a principle priority to a policy. Dworkin argues the objectivity in philosophy is the ground to insist on principle and to hold legal interpreting politically. Legal research and legal criticism are interpreting activities. It is a matter of interpreting, not a matter of invention. Legal analysis is fundamentally interpretive. So Dworkin rejects the opinions from Stanley Fish and Richard Rorty, who want to dissolve a rigorous distinction between ″discovery″ and ″making″, ″interpreting″ and ″invention″. Rorty tries ″to stop using the distinction between finding and making, discovery and invention objective and subjective″ . Dworkin believes that that distinction is important. Legal interpreting is an enterprise of discovery, an enterprise of politics. In this respect, we should firmly refuse subjectivity and uncertainty, and hold objectivity and seriousness. Dworkin has a consistency and strictness in arguments, such as ″I have no arguments for the objectivity of moral judgments except moral arguments, no arguments for the objectivity of interpretive judgments except interpretive arguments″. Secondly, Dworkin makes ″justice″ and ″efficiency″ at daggers drawn, and firmly spurns economic analysis of law. Dworkin stresses the importance to interpret Constitution morally. He argues that lawyers have to be deeply concerned about the morality of legal problematic. And he positively explores that dimension. He explains the reasons to interpret laws and Constitution morally. Dworkin argues it is impossible and unreasonable that some legal theorists, such as Richard Posner, try to desalt or neutralize the moral dimension of law. He criticizes the subjectivism, skepticism and individualism in legal interpreting. When Posner thinks that we should take seriously the opinions of Stanley Fish about legal interpreting, Dworkin rejects Fish and Posner all together. He thinks that we had better not care about Fish's works. And the economic analysis of law still does not get philosophical grounds for its rationality or legality.Thirdly, the main problematic of today's jurisprudence in China is its confusion or uncertainty as a discipline. Its main trouble is Chinese academic lawyers have to coincide two different directions, one is that of humanities and the other is that of sciences. For dissolving this problematic, this community has to realize a research-pattern turn. And in this respect, Dworkin has some good suggestions. (a) Chinese lawyers should have series of special methods of legal thinking, and at first they have to think according to legal principles, if a lawyers and jurists community is a professional one, then it is a community to hold these principles. To hold these principles is the Sovereign Virtue of this community. In other words, to think according to law is to think according to the principles of law. (b) And certainly, legal researches may achieve serious results. So on the issue of judicial discretion, Dworkin has to suppress the imaginations of lawyers and jurists. On a matter of principle, he does not find the space of Richard Rorty's post-metaphysics hopes, imaginations and poetry dreams. It is a necessary cost to do legal researches. So Dworkin does not allow Posner to ov
The Rationalism in Economics

Fang Qin,Wei Sen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19862/j.cnki.xsyk.2006.08.016

2006-01-01

Abstract:The rationalism in economics is the most important and noticeable genealogies in the development of economic thoughts. Firstly, we clarify the rationalism which we advocate by refusing instrumental rationality and explaining the meaning of “Vernunft”. Then, we turn to analyze the two part of the economic rationalism system, the hypothesis of economic rationalism and rational methodology. Through the meaning of the hypothesis of economic rationalism, we explain the foundation of the rational paradoxes, and prove that the economic rationalism is reasonable. But we must acknowledge that there is some deficiency in economic rationalism. By analyzing the Newcomb’s Problem, we know that the rational method has its limits. So finally we reach the conclusion that we should insist a kind of prudential rationalism in economics.

The Outline of Theory of the Rationality of Adjudication

The Complex of Theory of Rawls' Education Equity and the Criticism of Its Principle of Methodology

ON THE RATIONALITY AND THE LEGITIMACY OF THE PLANNING ADMINISTRATION

On the Ideal Rationality of the University

Between Abstract Theory and Plain Rationality:A Review of Sunstein’s "Incompletely Theorized Agreements"

Outline Comment on Parties-Judge Arguementation Theory——A View of Procedure Construction Based on Arguementation Theory of Law

Reflective Judgement and Prudential Rationality: A Contribution to an Inclusive Practical Application of Law

The Theoretical Prospect in the Age of Rights

Return to Abstract Theory of Right of Action

On Logical Justification of Legal Rationality

Rationality and Decisional Autonomy

Return to Reason

On the Positive Analysis of the Justice

On the Reflective Equilibrium: Its Meaning and Limitation

The Public Deciding Force of Administrative Action and Impairment of Public Affairs

The Formation and Progress of the Theory of Shrink of Administrative Discretion:From the Perspective of Administration to Prevent Dangers

Methods on Rhetorical Proof——Discussion on Two Judgments

Possibility and Restriction of Coherence in Legal Argumentation

Political Rationality and Political Science

Between Principles and Policies: Ronald Dworkin and Constructing an Ideal Jurist

The Rationalism in Economics