【作者】 彭立静；

【导师】 杨君武；

【作者基本信息】 湖南师范大学 ， 伦理学， 2001， 硕士

【摘要】 本文的主题是从伦理学视角探究知识产权，分析知识产权制度的伦理基础，确立知识产权保护应当遵守的伦理原则。 知识产权是指人们对其智能成果所拥有的法定权利。它主要包括著作权、专利权、商标权和商业秘密权。与传统产权(物权)相比，它具有无形性、独有性、地域性、时效性和易逝性等特性。 尽管知识产权制度在几乎所有国家里都被建立起来，但还是有人对其合理性有所质疑。知识产权保护在具体运作中遭遇到一些疑难困惑，而这些疑难困惑归根结底源于对伦理原则的不同选择。因此，有必要探究知识产权作为一种受法律保护的财产制度的伦理基础和知识产权保护应当遵循的伦理原则。 在近代西方思想史中，洛克从劳动价值论出发、黑格尔从自由意志论出发为传统产权做出了有力的伦理辩护。他们的辩护同样适用于知识产权，因为知识产权与传统产权的伦理基础是相同的。在现代西方思想史中，胡格斯发挥洛克的劳动价值论，论证了知识产权制度的合理性，而波斯纳基于成本—效益论对各类知识产权进行了经济分析，意在论证知识产权制度的必要性。这些思想家在为知识产权做辩护时，主要运用了公正原则、功利原则和人道原则。知识产权制度的伦理合理性可从以下三个方面得到证明：第一，它保障了智能劳动者的人权(效益权)、尊重了知识和知识分子。第二，它体现了社会分配的公正。第三，它有益于科技的进步、文化的繁荣和法制的完善，从而有益于整个社会的发展。 知识产权虽然具有其伦理基础，但并非绝对的和无限的。知识产权保护应当尊重公正原则、功利原则、整体原则和人道原则。公正原则要求：在保障权利人对其智能成果所拥有的效益权之同时，防止这种权利对他人造成不公正的待遇和对社会造成不良的影响，以及给予不能获得知识产权的重要智能成果(如基本原理、通用技法)的创造者以适当的补偿。功利原则要求:在将一项智能成果作为知识产权客体予以保护时，权衡其利弊得失，若这种保护给有关各方带来的利大于弊或得多于失则可行，反之则不可行。整体原则要求:为了整个人类的利益，某些智能成果的创造者应当放弃其知识产权，以及先进国家应当向落后国家优惠地甚或无偿地转让其知识产权。而人道原则要求:在将一项智能成果作为知识产权客体予以保护时，要看它是否有利于保障人的生命健康、维护人的人格尊严、促进人的价值实现，若是则可行，反之则不可行。这些原则既各有侧重又相互关联。 此外，在具体的知识产权保护活动中，人们应当竭力寻求权利人的个人利益与公众的社会利益之间、各个国家主体的利益之间的最佳平衡点。更多还原

【Abstract】 In this paper, an inquiry into intellectual property is made in theethical perspective, which analyses the ethical foundation of intellectual property system and sets up some ethical principles for intellectual property protection.As a bundle of rights, Intellectual property endows people with legal rights to enjoy the ownership of their own intellectual products, consisting chiefly in copyrights, patent rights, trademark rights and trade secret rights. In comparison to goods property, intellectual property shows a few characteristics of its own as follows: invisibility, exclusivcness, limitation of its effective period and area, and susceptibility to violation.Although intellectual property system has been built in most countries, there are persons who throw skepticism into its rationality. Some acute problems about intellectual property protection often appear in practice, which stem ultimately from the different choice of ethical principles. It is therefore necessary to inquiry into the ethical foundation of intellectual property as a kind of property protected by laws and into the ethical principles for the intellectual property protection to abide by.In the modern western history of thought, Locke’s labor value doctrine and Hegel’s free will doctrine, serving as a powerful justification for traditional property, can also apply to intellectual property, because the two kinds of properties nx)t in the same ethical foundation. In the contemporary western history of thought, Hughes develops Locke’s labor value doctrine to demonstrate the rationality of intellectual propertysystem, while Posner goes on his own way, applying his cost - profitdoctrine to justify the intellectual property system’. In doing so, these thinkers appeal mainly to the principles of justice, of utility and of humanism.We can of course prove the moral rationality of intellectual property system from three aspects as follows: Firstly, It provides protection to intellectual laborers’ human right (profit right) and offers respect for knowledge and intellectuals. Secondly, it confirms the justice of social distribution. At last, it contributes to the promotion of technology and science, the prosperity of culture and the perfection of legal system, thereof to the development of whole society. Regardless of all its moral grounds, intellectual property isn’t absolute and unrestricted. Intellectual property protection should abide by the principles of justice, of utility, of totality and of humanism.The principle of justice requires: we should take actions, in protecting the creators’ profit right from their intellectual products, to prevent this right from treating unjustly with others and doing harm to the society, and to compensate those who create important intellectual products (such as fundamental principles and formulas, general techniques and methods) but can not own their intellectual property.The principle of utility requires: we must weigh the advantage and disadvantage, the gain and loss when we protect an intellectual product as the object of intellectual property. If this action results in the advantage more than the disadvantage or the gain more than the loss, it is feasible. Otherwise, it is not.The principle of totality requires: for the sake of whole human interest , some intellectual creators should give up their intellectual property, and some developed countries should transfer intellectual property to undeveloped countries preferentially or free of charge.The principle of humanism requires: when protecting an intellectual product as the object of intellectual property, we should consider whether this protection is of benefit to safeguard human life and health, to maintain human dignity, and to realize human value. If following that, it is practicable. Otherwise, it is not.Of the above - mentioned principles, each has its respective emphasis, but they are closely connected with each other.Moreover, in the practice of intellectual property protection, we should do our best to find the opti更多还原