论文部分内容阅读
凯尔森在科学的法庭上指控,自然法学说视自然的为公正的,试图从自然事实推导出正义原则,而阿奎那把自然法理解为实践理性原则,未犯“自然主义谬误”;指控它要求一位全能全善的立法者,必然预设宗教前提,而阿奎那把宗教理解为一种特殊的善,并未强加信仰的前提;指控自然法与实在法二元论必然导致实在法极为多余,而阿奎那不仅解释了这种二元论的理由,而且还分析了实在法源于自然法的两种方式;指控自然法学说本质上是保守的意识形态,必然带来不存在或仅仅存在有限抵抗权的教条,而阿奎那指出了反抗暴政和诛杀暴君的可能。
Kelsen accused in the scientific court that the law of natural law regarded the nature as just and tried to derive the principle of justice from natural facts. However, Aquinas interpreted the law of nature as the principle of practical rationality and did not commit "naturalistic fallacies Allegations that it requires an all-powerful legislator must presuppose religious presuppositions, and that Aquinas interpret religion as a special kind of good without preconditions that impose beliefs; that the duality of natural law and real law necessarily leads to real law And Aquinas not only explained the rationale of this dualism, but also analyzed two ways that the Reality Law came from natural law. The accusation that the doctrine of natural law is essentially a conservative ideology inevitably leads to non-existence or mere existence The doctrine of limited resistance, while Aquinas pointed out the possibility of resistance to tyranny and the killing of tyrants.