摘要：

“江歌案”的民事判决揭示了“道德导入司法”的可能性，但其采用的导入方法仍待检视。从实然角度而言，既有的司法实践主要通过“转译”方法实现道德导入，即当法官意识到个案的法律判断与道德判断存在冲突时，其会遵从道德判断的指向而修正法律判断之发现，并对修正后的法律判断加以证立，使得道德判断可被社会公众间接地接受。但是，“道德转译”具有明显的内隐性特征，可能出现法官专断的风险，有必要进行外显化改造，为转译下的司法裁判提供公开阐释的场所。从应然角度而言，理想的司法裁判需依据“议论”方法进行道德导入：一是道德判断应在社会场景下完成“生成性议论”；二是道德判断要在法庭场域内展开“司法化议论”。在此意义上，基于法律议论的程序规范便是“道德导入司法”的制度化装置，其可补强道德判断在司法场域下的“合理可接受性”，进而为个案裁判的规范效果与社会效果提供调适契机。

关键词:

Abstract:

The civil judgment of the “Jiang Ge Case” reveals the possibility of “importing moral judgement into the judicial decision”, but the method of importation used still needs to be examined. From a practical standpoint, the existing judicial practice mainly relies on the “translation” method to achieve moral importation. That is, when a judge realizes that the legal judgment in a case conflicts with moral judgment, he or she will follow the direction of moral judgment to rediscover the legal judgment and justify it, thus making moral judgment indirectly accepted by the public. However, “moral translation” possesses an implicit nature, and judicial decisions made it fail to explicitly address the essential questions of “which moral judgment is involved” and “whether moral judgment is necessary”, thus easily increasing the risk of judicial arbitrariness. For this reason, it is imperative to fully externalize the process of “moral translation” and establish a public platform for the interpretation of judicial decisions made through translation. Therefore, from a normative standpoint, the ideal judicial decision should be based on an argumentation approach to achieve moral importation. On one hand, there is a need for “generative argumentation” in social contexts, transforming a judge’s personal moral considerations into socially recognized moral consensus. On the other hand, there is a need for “judicialized argumentation” in the courtroom, formally embedding social moral consensus into legal judgment at the judicial level. In this sense, procedural rules based on deliberation serve as institutionalized mechanisms for “importing moral judgement into the judicial decision” enhancing the reasonable acceptability of moral judgments in the judicial arena and providing an opportunity to reconcile the normative and social impacts of each case.

Key words: