【作者】 戴庆康；

【导师】 樊和平；

【作者基本信息】 东南大学 ， 伦理学， 2005， 博士

【摘要】 伦理与法律的关系如何?尽管众说纷纭，但主张两者必须整合的观点，在理论界已经取得广泛的共识。但是，整合的整合点在何处，却少有人研究，而没有整合点的整合论不仅在理论上欠严谨，而且缺乏真正的现实性和可操作性。如果说伦理与法律所体现的是人际交往和互动的不同样态与秩序，那么对于伦理和法律的研究便需要以人际交往的现实为出发点。人际交往之展开与可能，是基于人对自身人性的认识和对他人人性的认同。人基于自身人性的认识而要成为一个人，从而要将其自由意志延伸到物(要支配物)以实现其人性的尊严，从而产生权利意识(权利的主张或诉求)；人基于对他人人性的认同而要尊敬他人为人、尊敬他人的人性尊严，从而产生了意志的冲突与妥协，产生了延伸和支配的当与不当的问题，并最终产生了以正当为其本质要素的权利，形成客观的人伦秩序，或伦理权利秩序。客观的伦理权利秩序能够通过某种机制得以发现，并且有序地转变为法律权利秩序，是权利秩序的表现和要求。这样一种机制通过立法权对发现法律的专属性、立法之合理性价值的明确、对立法的伦理论证和法院司法对立法成果的否定之否定得以建立。权利由人伦实体中的个体权利意识到伦理权利，再由伦理权利到法律权利，最后由法律权利经过法院司法重归人伦实体的发展轨迹，是权利秩序的内在发展逻辑。权利秩序的形成意味着新的否定之否定的开始。否定首先从精神病人和非精神病人对权利秩序的破坏开始。破坏的完成，使权利秩序被扭曲，产生了权利秩序的假象。权利秩序的内在逻辑衍生出一种否定性力量，即规范化权力(包括法律的惩诫及精神疾病的诊治)。权利秩序以此实现对否定其自身的东西的否定来摆脱假象、彰显权利秩序的本质。对权利秩序而言，异化的规范化权力由肯定性力量变成了否定性力量。权利秩序的内在逻辑要求对规范化权力进行限制、干预和规范，对其进行否定之否定。正是在这一轮否定之否定中，权利秩序又返回到其自身，复归其本质。这一否定性力量，即法治原则，其核心是确立法院司法至上的法院最终审判原则，实现德性法官之治。人对自身的认识(即对理性的过分强调)、对精神疾病的界定(即对精神病人理智受损的夸大)、以及对精神病学的科学化定位，将精神病人边缘化、客体化和非人化，最终将其逐出了权利秩序。人类对待处于极端状态的精神病人的态度以及精神病学的主观性和价值判断的属性，威胁着权利秩序的每一个人，从而给权利秩序造成毁灭性和颠覆性的破坏。权利秩序的维系，有赖于人对自身人性的再认识，有赖于对精神病人与我们正常人之间共享人性的再认同，有赖于对精神病学的重新定位，有赖于将已经被非人化和客体化的精神病人重新人化和主体化，让其回归权利秩序。精神疾病的价值判断属性、精神病人的人性、精神卫生关系中的深层伦理矛盾，都决定了法律干预精神疾病诊治的伦理正当性。精神卫生立法如何对待处于人类极端状态的精神病人，更能折射出权利秩序的伦理正当性。没有法律对精神疾病诊治的干预，就没有法治，就没有权利秩序。上述研究揭示了权利是伦理和法律的中介和桥梁，构成伦理-法律整合的整合点。因此，有关法律与伦理之关系的研究，应以权利为切入点。法律权利必须以伦理权利为根基和本源，才具有正当性和合法性；伦理权利必须得到法律的承认和保护，才能得到现实化。伦理权利成为法律得以存在的前提和运行的逻辑起点，并成为判断立法成功与否、法律善恶与否、法律正当与否、法律本身合法与否的检测标准。而其根本就是要使人为的权利秩序设计(立法)要以维护和促进人之为人的尊严和权利为价值取向。法律是否创设和维护了每个人的人类尊严，对于这一问题的思考、论证和回答，是伦理学对法治所能做和所应该做的贡献。这样一些研究及研究的结论，对于我们当下有关我国立法正当性的思考是有一定意义的。上述研究也揭示了法律干预精神疾病诊治的伦理正当性，以及这样一种干预对于整个法治秩序和权利秩序的伦理重要性，从理论的高度为我国正在进行的精神卫生立法调研和准备给予了辩护和诠释。这样一些研究和论述，对于现今中国正在进行的精神卫生立法调研具有现实紧迫性和重要意义。上述研究的不足主要体现在二个方面。首先，上述研究所揭示的权利秩序是基于人际交往关系而言的，是人际关系中的正当的样态。但是，权利一词已经扩展到人之外，出现了自然界的权利、动物的权利等。如果说在人与自然界、人与动物之间也存在着这样一种正当的样态，也存在着一种权利秩序的话，那么，这样一种样态何以可能?这样一种权利秩序如何产生?又如何按照自身的逻辑演进和发展?本文的论述似乎不能解释这样一种权利秩序，有待于作进一步的研究。再次，上述研究的主要目的是为了阐述伦理法律权利秩序原理。精神疾病诊治权的立法干预是权利秩序演进中的一个环节。因此，对精神病人权利的探讨是作为一个例证来处理的，对精神病人权利的伦理辩护只局限于精神病人三大人之为人的基本权利，而没有探讨由这三大权利衍生的其他权利，对精神卫生立法的伦理论证和分析也只局限于法律干预精神疾病诊治的伦理正当性和精神卫生立法的伦理使命，而对于精神卫生生立法中的诸多问题并没有展开充分的伦理论证和分析。这对于我国正在进行的精神卫生立法而言，无疑是一个缺憾，有待今后的进一步研究。更多还原

【Abstract】 Despite the various views on the relations between ethics and law, the doctrine of the integration of ethics and law prevails among current academics. However, few people contemplate the issue where the connecting point for the integration lies. The doctrine of integration without connecting point is insufficient and inoperative in practice. Since both ethics and law reflect the order and status of the inter-personal association and interactions, the study of ethics and law shall commence from the study of such association and interactions.The inter-personal association and interaction are preconditioned on the awareness of the self’s human nature and the recognition of the other’s human nature. The self’s awareness of human nature drives him(her) to realize his (her) human dignity by extending his(her) free wills to material objects and dominating them. The consciousness or claim of rights emerges from such an extension and manipulation. The recognition of other’s human nature requires him(her) to respect the human integrity and dignity of others. The conflict and compromise of wills are resulted from such awareness and recognition. In the process of conflict and compromise of wills, there emanates the issue of whether the extension of wills and the domination of material objects are right or wrong. The conflict and compromise lead to the birth of right with legitimacy as its essential core, and the establishment of the order of rights, i.e., the order of ethical rights. The order of rights requires the regular discovery of the objective ethical order and orderly transformation of ethical rights into legal rights. Such discovery and transformation are made possible by conferment of the exclusive power upon the legislative to discover laws, the clarification of the legitimacy value of legislations, the ethical justification and scrutiny of legislations, and the dialectic negation of the legislative outcome by the judiciary. The inherent logic of the order of rights is embodied in the development process of rights, which commence from the consciousness of rights of the individuals in ethical reality, then evolve to ethical rights and transform to legal rights, and return to ethical reality in judicial procedure of court of justice.The emergence of the order of rights means the beginning of a new cycle of dialectic negation. The negation starts from the violation of the order of rights by either the mentally abled or mentally disabled. The order of rights is twisted due to these violations, leading to the shaping of pseudomorph of the order of rights. The inherent logic of the order of rights is to shake off the pseudomorph and exhibit its true essence by fostering a negation force, i.e., the regulatory power of legal discipline and mental health practice. The regulatory power starts its alienation process since its birth. Its alienation turns it from a positive force of the rights-order into a negative force, which means that it is to be negated and regulated under the logic of rights order. The negation force in this cycle, the force for the negation and regulation of the regulatory power, is the principle of rule of law, and its key element is the supremacy of the judiciary and the rule of justices of virtues. Just in this cycle of dialectic negation does the order of rights shake off thepseudomorph and return to its true essence.The mentally disabled are marginalized, objectified and dehumanized, and thus thrown out of the rights-order because of our unnecessary emphasis of reason in defining ourselves, our exaggeration of the loss of reason of the mentally disabled, and the doctrine of science in mental health practice. With the subjectivity and the decisive importance of value judgment in mental health practice, the human attitude toward the mentally disabled, their fellows in extreme conditions, puts every one under the rights-order in danger. The maintenance of the rights-order depends on a reconsideration of the self’s human nature and the other’s shared human nature, and a redefinition of the nature of mental health practice. The decisive importance of value judgment in mental health practice, the shared human nature of the mentally disabled, and the profound ethical conflicts in mental health practice all justify the ethical legitimacy of legal control over mental health practice. How mental health legislations behave toward the mentally disabled, the fellows in extreme conditions, speaks more convincingly of the ethical legitimacy of the rights-order. There will be no rule of law and no existence of the rights-order without the legal control of mental health practice, especially the medical power to diagnose and treat the mentally disabled.The above research reveals that right is the joint bridge between ethics and law, and is qualified to be a joint point for the integration of ethics and law. Accordingly, the study of the relations between law and ethics shall take right as its cutting point. Legal rights must be based on and originated from ethical rights for their justifiability and legitimacy; Ethical rights must be recognized and protected in law for their realization. Ethical rights is the precondition and the logical starting point of legal rights, and is the test for the success of legislation, the goodness, justification and legitimacy of law. The key to it is that the design of artificial rights-order (legislation) must be oriented to the value of protecting and promoting human dignity and human rights. The conclusion helps clarify the current Chinese thinking on the legitimacy of legislations.The above study also shows the ethical legitimacy of legal control over mental health practice and the significant ethical implications of such control for the whole rights-order and the rule-of-law order, which are an ethical analysis and a philosophical annotation for the preparation of mental health legislation in China. Such analysis and annotation are urgently necessary and important for the mental health legislation.The above research is applicable to the order of rights among interpersonal relations. However the use of the word "right" has been extended beyond personal relations and the right of the nature and the right of animals are hotly discussed. If there is a right status and an order of rights in the relations between human beings and the nature, or between human beings and the animals, how can such an order of rights be possible and justified with legitimacy? How does it evolve under its own inherent logic? These issues cannot be explained with the above research and needs further research.The purpose of the above research is to explore the principles of order of ethical and legal rights. The legislative control of diagnosis and treatment of mentally disabled is a stage of the evolution process of the rights-order. Accordingly, the exploration on the rights of the mentally disabled is only an illustration, and thus the above exploration is limited to the three fundamental rights of the disabled as a human being. The ethical analysis and arguments are confined to the legitimacy of legal control over mental health practice and the ethical mission of mental health legislation. The derivative rights and other issues in mental health legislation are not covered and demand further studies.更多还原