顏厥安 法理學 112-1 期末考
◎考題分為三部分，每一部分都有3題，選答其中1題（包括該題所有小題）即可，亦即總共只需要回答三題。若同一部分回答超過1題，僅以題號最前面1題來計分。
◎除非有特別註明，每題最高得34分。原始分數以百分制計算，之後再轉為等第制
第一部分
- 請說明下列問題
(1) 請說明古典自然法論之「自然正確」（natural right; 與現代natural rights不同）理論要點，以及其目的論（teleology）的關係。
(2) 請以(1)的說明為基礎，討論下列A, B所列的法律原則或規範，何者可以認為是一種「自然法」，請分別討論之：A. 殺人應處死刑；B. 所有權人得自由使用、收益、處分其所有物，並排除他人之干涉。
- 請回答下列問題：
(1) 請說明聖湯瑪斯·阿奎納斯（St. Thomas Aquinas，常簡稱為聖湯瑪斯）「法理論」的要點（包含有四種不同的法律）。
(2) 請以聖湯瑪斯的理論來檢討討論：實證法（positive laws）是否為絕對統治者（如君主或主權者）的命令/指令（command, imperative）？實證法牴觸自然法的問題，該如何處理？
- 請回答下列問題
(1) 請說明洛克（Locke, John）的財產權理論中，財產權的權利基礎、「私有財產權」的限制條件，以及財富不平等的起源。
(2) 請運用洛克的理論，檢討所得稅「累進稅率」（亦即，所得越高，稅率越高）是否合理。
第二部分
- 請回答下列問題
(1) 請說明凱爾森（Kelsen,Hans）的法實證主義理論的要點。
(2) 凱爾森的理論與古典法實證主義理論（指Bentham & Austin的理論），有哪些異同。
(3) 凱爾森的理論，是否功地反駁了古典法實證主義理論？
- 請回答下列問題：
(1) 請簡述哈特（Hart,H.L.A.）的法理學理論所具有「法實證主義」特色。
(2) 以下為哈特（Hart,H.L.A.）一段有關惡法、濫權、法律有效不等於服從義務、道德檢驗等問題的文字。請思考討論，這段文字有無抵觸哈特自己的理論，尤其是法實證主義的立場？
So long as human beings can gain sufficient co-operation from some to enable them to dominate others, they will use the forms of law as one of their instruments. Wicked men will enact wicked rules which others will enforce. What surely is most needed in order to make men clear-sighted in confronting the official abuse of power, is that they should preserve the sense that the certification of something as legally valid is not conclusive of the question of obedience, and that, however great the aura of majesty or authority which the official system may have, its demands must in the end be submitted to a moral scrutiny. This sense, that there is something outside the official system, by reference to which in the last resort the individual must solve his problems of obedience, is surely more likely to be kept alive among those who are accustomed to think that rules of law may be iniquitous, than among those who think that nothing iniquitous can anywhere have the status of law. （Hart, The Concept of Law, 2nd ed.: 210）
(3) 這是否是一種對賴德布魯赫公式成功的反駁？哈特對處理納粹法制的方案，有何優點與缺點？
- 請回答下列問題：
(1) 以下引用賴德布魯赫對「法與道德」關係的敘述，請簡述其要點。
It may best be illustrated by any sentence combining a norm with an imperative, when normative contents appear in imperative form. "Do your duty!" Let us separate the meaning of that sentence from what carries it, the declared from the declaration. We then get, on the one hand, an existential structure, definite in time and space, brought about and effective by way of causation, a sequence of tones which sounds here and now, originating in a certain psychological process in the speaker and producing another such process in the listener. On the other hand, we get a nontemporal, nospatial, noncausal content of significance, a moral necessity which is valid independently of the place, the time, and the effectiveness of that declaration. That sentence, then, is an imperative inasmuch as it exists and is effective, and a norm inasmuch as it signifies and is valid; it is an imperative inasmuch as a will is asserted thereby, and a norm inasmuch as an Ought is stated therein. Both are combined in the instant sentence though by no means in every other case. The norm is nonreality intending to be realized; the imperative is reality intending to be effective. The norm intends to be an end, the imperative only a means to an end. The norm as an end has not been fulfilled before compliance with the norm itself; the imperative, as a mere means to an end, is executed upon compliance with its purpose, whether by its own motivating force or without its intervention by a previously existing motivation in the same direction. The norm requires a conduct complying with the norm from a motive complying with the norm; the imperative is satisfied by a conduct complying with the imperative no matter how motivated. In other words: the norm requires morality, the imperative legality - but again, even as regards that secondary imperative form of the law, legality is by no means a mode of obligation, since the very essence of the imperative is not to oblige but to determine, not to be valid but to be effective. (LP (note 6): 83; GRGAII (note 6):269. 斜體字由顏厥安老師所加)
(2) 請綜合比較討論，這段敘敘述與「賴德布魯赫公式」的關係，彼此是否有重大差異？
(3) 請思考檢討，這套理論有何優缺點？面對極為邪惡的「惡法」時，會比法實證主義
的理論更有說服力嗎？
第三部分
- 請說明下列問題：
(1) 請說明德沃金（Dworkin, Ronald）早期對法實證主義三大命題之批判。
(2) 請由德沃金理論，說明何謂「法律命題」（proposition of law）、法之基礎（grounds of law），以及法的概念觀（conceptions of law）
(3) 請由現行法舉一個例子來討論，為何德沃金認為「評價中立」的法理學理論無法成立？
- 請在「實施法律強制的原則」（Principles of Legal Enforcement）（也可稱為「強制實施道德」（Enforcement of Morality）的問題脈絡下，回答下列問題：
(1) 請說明，「違反道德的行為」、「傷害他人的行為」，以及「立法禁止的行為」，三種行為類型彼此的關係。
(2) 請檢討論證，為何政府可以立法禁止，既沒有違反道德，也沒有傷害他人的行為？並請由現行法舉例來討論說明。
(3) 請比較以下A, B兩個案例，討論僅僅具有各式「風險」（risk）的行爲，應該以何種「思維角度」來進行管制？或者完全不應管制？請注意，不同情境中，風險的態樣、範圍與迫切程度等可能不同。A. 施放天燈；B. 醉態駕駛（酒駕）。
- 請回答下列問題：
(1) 請說明羅爾斯（Rawls, John）的「公民不服從」理論的要點與主要爭議點。
(2) 請說明此種公民不服從理論與「良心拒絕」的異同。
(3) 如過異議者破壞某政府機關門窗，潛入後佔領該機關，並使其停擺無法運作一週以上，並堆積機關桌椅，阻礙警力進入，此等行為是否能主張羅爾斯理論裡所稱的「公民不服從」？請討論之。
