| dc.contributor | 法學院 | - |
| dc.creator (作者) | 陳欣白 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Chen, Hsin-Pai | - |
| dc.date (日期) | 2012-03-17 | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 31-十二月-2015 10:09:54 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 31-十二月-2015 10:09:54 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 31-十二月-2015 10:09:54 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/item?item_id=89377 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | The idea of retributive justice plays an essential role in discussing the aim of judicial penalties, among which Immanuel Kant’s notion is of particular concern. One reason is there seems a conceptual contradiction between Kant’s ethics and his political philosophy, which are two components of his practical philosophy. Especially the statement that the murder should be punished with the death is a categorical imperative makes Kant’s position obviously paradoxical: treating the death penalty as necessary while emphasizing the human dignity at the same time.This paper attempts to give a reasonable explanation for the above-mentioned puzzle: by illuminating the respectively coherent meaning of “categorical imperative”, “coercive power” and “humanity/moral personality” we can find that, just like what H.-G. Schmitz pointed out, Kant‘s admixture of two legitimacy-requirements, i.e. the legitimacy of the punishment itself and the legitimate way to punish, causes the incoherence between the whole context of his thought and its specific parts. As long as the admixture can be eliminated, we would reach the conclusion that not only Kant’s theory of retribution is with no preventive character at all, the recognition of retribution means not necessarily the endorsement of the death penalty also.The other attempt of this paper, though not thoroughly enough, is from the view of Kant’s retributive theory clarifying the focal points of the controversy over the death penalty in Taiwan society. I believe, backing to the classic texts and making the conceptual analysis is also an important work contributing to the consensus in the future. | - |
| dc.format.extent | 100 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | text/html | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 後繼受時代的東亞法文化 : 東亞法哲學研討會. 第八屆 | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 主辦單位:國立政治大學法學院 | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 舉辦日期:2012.03.17-2012.03.18 | - |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Immanuel Kantl; Categorical Imperative; Retributive Justice; Death Penalty | - |
| dc.title (題名) | 由康德的應報論觀點出發思考台灣死刑存廢的爭論 | zh_TW |
| dc.title.alternative (其他題名) | Kant’s Idea of Retributive Justice and a Reflection on the Controversy over the Death Penalty in Taiwan Society | - |
| dc.type (資料類型) | conference | - |
