【作者】 伊涛；

【导师】 杜宴林；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法学理论， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 当代社会的中国人仍旧像传统社会的中国人那样，往往身不由己被拉入或被抛入人际关系，又往往基于利益考量而主动建立与维护人际关系，而且那样的价值趋向会在各社会领域获得展现。儒学的核心要义正是把人放在“仁”字“从人从二”的二人关系或者人与人的关系中加以定位。发源于西方的权利话语来到中国后便要在颇具儒学背景的社会语境中发挥作用。在熟人社会，人际关系及其内在的道德话语要重于权利话语。借助于一件具体的债权纠纷来看，两种话语首先作为民众解决日常生活问题的两套备选方案而存在，继而基于当事人根据具体情况做出的选择，权利话语仅仅只是在德性不得彰显以及人际关系破裂时才会发挥作用。可以把那样的现象称为“权利备选论与权利后备论”。群众路线制度在其中发挥着重要作用，它本身便是马克思主义来到中国之后吸纳人际关系主义文化传统而实现了中国化的产物。儒家曾说，克己复礼为仁，需要同时借用内在的德与外在的礼来维持人际关系。借用儒学的内外框架，当代社会的道德与法律同样一内一外发挥着作用，仅凭内在自律性的道德以及道德自觉来维持人际关系并不可靠，在道德无法发挥作用或者不能有效发挥作用的时候，便有必要借助于外在他律性的法律解决问题，正是权利备选论与权利后备论的儒学内涵。亲子关系是一种以血缘关系为基础的特殊人际关系。当代中国的亲子伦理一如既往继续呈现出了下一代对上一代都要有所反馈的景象，即甲代抚育乙代而又乙代赡养甲代，乙代抚育丙代而又丙代赡养乙代。反馈的思想基础仍旧是儒家的孝道理念。司法机关于2010年前后常借用儒学文本上的孝道理念来考量涉孝纠纷。儒学文本上的孝道理念并非判决依据，它们出现在判决书上说明法官把儒学文本视为孝道理念的权威表达，要借用权威表达来加强司法判决的权威性与说理性。涉孝纠纷一旦出现便表明仅凭血缘亲情及其伦理话语来维持亲子关系并不可靠，因而才有必要借助于权利话语解决纠纷，但那样仅仅只是为了恢复伦理话语在日常生活中具有更高的位置。因为代际法律制度何以出现仅仅只是立法对代际伦理制度做了法律上的修辞。涉孝纠纷内含着“法不诛心”的法律难题，若要化解那样的法律难题便需要让“制定法之治”转向“法治国之治”。在纯粹的陌生人交往领域，见于街头问路事例，发问一方时常称呼被问一方或兄弟或姐妹或叔伯或姨。那样的称呼是家庭伦理向公共领域的外溢，体现着儒家的“四海之内皆兄弟”以及“老吾老及人之老；幼无幼及人之幼”等把非亲人视为或拟制为亲人的理念，其间存在着以“爱的起承转合式的传递”为核心的儒学实践，即“起”于对自己的亲人有爱，发挥出来而让他人“承”接，把对自己亲人的爱“转”化为对他人的爱，把同样的爱“合”于一切人的身上。只要双方当事人交流顺畅，权利话语就没有出现的机会，但“爱的传递”仅仅只是儒家的道德理想。就像彭宇案的出现那样，在陌生人交往并不顺畅的时候，儒学实践的道德话语与权利话语发生了激烈的冲突。法律既不为人们提供“人人相爱”的道德理想，也不会对那样的理想加以否定，而只是以中立的态度予以对待，继而以尊重当事人之选择的方式对当事人持有的道德理想予以间接的尊重。在公民与国家的关系上，前者既可以借助于自身的权利面对后者，民俗作用于民众的日常生活，使得前者也可以借助于儒家化的家庭伦理面对后者。权利话语指向的是政治以及法律意义上的国家；伦理话语指向的则是文化以及伦理甚至民族意义上的国家。见于辽宁省岫岩县的“太平香祭祖还愿”民俗，因其内含着鬼神信仰，而难以与当代政治意识形态以及法律主张的无神论相提并论，使得两种意义上的国家以及两种话语有所分离。在有神论不被认可的情况下，文化意义上的国家及其内在的伦理话语只能潜藏在民间社会。见于河南省和陕西省的“祭祀黄帝”民俗，因其经由转型已经不再具有鬼神信仰的内涵，而且既曾被政府借用而成为维系国家统一的政治符号，又曾受到《宪法》以及《非物质文化遗产保护法》的认可，使得两种意义上的国家以及两种话语方才发生融合。权利话语与伦理话语以及道德话语共同作用于民众的日常生活，后者具有儒学内涵，因而可以用“权利儒学”的概念来定义两种话语的融合以及孰轻孰重孰先孰后的位置排序现象。权利儒学作为一种法哲学理论奠基于儒学。儒学自先秦以来先后经历了“内仁外礼”、“内仁外仁政”、“内仁外天”、“内仁外道”、“内仁外理”、“内圣外王”六大阶段，发展至当代便以“内仁外权利”为内容。任何阶段的“内与外”都具有两相并列与前后递进的两种结构。权利儒学的具体内容就是如何展现那样的内外结构。权利话语得以彰显往往根源于道德话语和伦理话语被搁浅，体现着两套话语具有并列关系。民众根据具体情况在其中做出选择，而选择是在两套话语间滑动。选择以及滑动旨在稳固两套话语的并列关系。仅凭道德话语和伦理话语能否引致出人们想要的结果是策动选择的动因。如果选择权利话语意味着要彻底舍弃道德话语和伦理话语，使得两套话语呈现出了分立而又决然对立关系。如果选择权利话语只是意在策动道德话语和伦理话语重新获得彰显，那就意味着要借助于权利话语来促使道德自觉重新托举出道德话语以及伦理话语。如此以来，尽管其间仍旧无法消解掉两套话语的并列关系，但可以牵引出道德自觉与道德话语以及伦理话语的前后递进关系，即两套话语呈现为并列关系，有时会具有促发道德自觉与道德话语以及伦理话语重新展现出前后递进关系的作用，而那样的牵引本身则体现出了两套话语具有前后递进的关系。更多还原

【Abstract】 Our Chinese people often have to be drawn or thrown into many interpersonalrelations, and always, due to considerations of interests, try to establish and maintainthose relations. Such focus on the interpersonal relations manifests itself in the entiresphere of society. The gist of Confucianism puts human beings in the context ofinterpersonal relations deriving from the concept of “Ren”(仁). When the rightsdiscourse originating from the Western world comes to China, it necessarily works ina social context of emphasizing interpersonal relations.In the acquaintance society, interpersonal relations and its inherent moraldiscourse are prior to rights discourse. when some controversies happen over a debt,Although both the discourse of rights and the discourse of interpersonal relationssometimes appear in popular daily life synchronously and stand as two alternatives forproblem-solving, the parties, based on the concrete circumstances, usually put therights discourse aside until the break of interpersonal relations. The mass line systemis a political and legal system with interpersonal relations as its core. The mass linesystem results from the sinicized Marxism, which has absorbed the ways of relationisttradition after coming to China. Confucianism insists on the use of both the internal“De”(德) and the external “Li”(礼) in maintaining interpersonal relations. Similarly,morals and laws in the contemporary society work separately internally and externally,and it is unreliable to depend only on the inner autonomous morals and moralself-consciousness to hold interpersonal relations. When morals don’t work or workeffectively, we need to resort to the external heteronomous laws to solve problems.That is the Confucian meaning of “theory regarding rights as an alternative” and“theory regarding rights as posterior”.The intergenerational parent-child relation is a particular interpersonal relationbased on genetic connection. There exists a feedback mode of intergenerational ethics in Chinese intergenerational parent-child relation, i.e. the preceding generation raisesup the next generation and the latter supports the former in turn. The idea of thefeedback mode is that of filial piety. The controversies involving filial piety occur in aintergenerational parent-child relation. Our courts often resorted to the idea of filialpiety in the Confucian texts in considering relevant controversies. theintergenerational parent-child relation is a particular interpersonal relation based ongenetic connection. There exists a feedback mode of intergenerational ethics inChinese intergenerational parent-child relation, i.e. the preceding generation raises upthe next generation and the latter supports the former in turn. The idea of the feedbackmode is that of filial piety. The controversies involving filial piety occur in aintergenerational parent-child relation. Our courts often resorted to the idea of filialpiety in the Confucian texts in considering relevant controversies. The rightsdiscourse and the ethical discourse are two alternatives for people to solveintergenerational relation problems, and the priority of the former is simply a drivingforce of the priority of the latter. For the appearance of legal institutions determininginterpersonal relations is just the legislative rhetoric of ethical institutions determininginterpersonal relations. Controversies involving filial piety include the legal problemof “law does not kill the mind”, whose solution need the turn from “rule of statutes” to“rule of Rechtsstaat”.In a case of asking for the way, the one who asks often call the one who answers“brother”,“sister”,“uncle” or “aunt”. Such terms come from family relations, andsimply show the penetration of family ethics into public sphere in the communicationbetween strangers. That penetration expresses the Confucian idea that stresses on “allare brothers” and regards non-relatives as relatives, in which lies the Confucianpractice focusing on “the transfer of love through origin-progression-turn-synthesis. Ifthe course of asking the way goes well, the social order among strangers can beshaped by family ethics, and the rights discourse may hardly appear, but the transferof love is just a moral ideal of Confucianism. As was shown by the Pengyu case,when the communication between strangers dose not go well, the moral discourse andthe rights discourse will conflict with each other. Law is indifferent (not supportive or hostile) to the moral ideal of “people love each other”, and will respect the choices ofparties and then their moral ideals.Citizens can face the state either through their rights or by means of Confucianfamily ethics. The rights discourse refers to the state in the legal sense, and the ethicaldiscourse refers to the state in the cultural, ethical and even national sense. The folkmores of Tai Ping Xiang ancestor worship in Liaoning province involve the faith inghosts and gods, and cannot get along with the atheism maintained by contemporarypolitical ideology and laws, therefore the states in different senses and the twodiscourses separate from each other. The state in the cultural sense and its inherentethical discourse can only hide within civil society. The Huang Di worship in Henanprovince involves no faith in ghosts and gods, is used by the government as a politicalsymbol for national unity and recognized by the Constitution and the Law ofIntangible Culture and Its Protection, therefore mixes the states in two senses and thetwo discourses.The rights discourse, the ethical discourse and the moral discourse affect togetherthe daily life of the people, and we may call the mixture of the two kinds of discoursesand their order by the concept “Rights Confucianism”. As a legal philosophy, theRights Confucianism is based on Confucianism, which has undergone six stages inhistory and comes to “Ren as the inner and Rights as the external”. The inner and theexternal in every stage have two kinds of structures of juxtaposition and progression.The concrete content of Rights Confucianism is how to show the structure of the innerand the external. The rights discourse often arises at the end of the moral discourseand the ethical discourse, which displays the juxtaposition of the two discourses.When making concrete choices, people waver between the two discourses. Thechoices and the wavering mean to strengthen the juxtaposition of the two discourses.If choosing the rights discourse means to abandon the moral discourse and the ethicaldiscourse, then a conflict appears between the two discourses. If choosing the rightsdiscourse aims at making the moral discourse and the ethical discourse reappear, thatmeans to promote the moral self-consciousness to once more elevate the moraldiscourse and the ethical discourse by the rights discourse, which although cannot destruct the juxtaposition of the two discourses, may lead to the progression from themoral self-consciousness to the moral discourse and the ethical discourse.更多还原