洞穴奇案的十四種判決

萨伯(Peter suber，1951- )，影响甚广的“开放近用运动”(open Access Movement，提倡在科研文献发表的同时，将电子文本在网上公布，以便读者免费取阅)的发起人。1973年毕业于美国叶尔汉姆学院，1978年获西北大学哲学博士学位。长期担任叶尔汉姆学院哲学教授，也讲授法律、计算机等其他课程。萨伯从事很多领域的社会活动，兼任SPARC(“学者出版与学术资源联盟”)高级研究员和耶鲁大学法学院信息社会项目访问学者等多项职务，还是两家网站(openaccessnews和ODenaccessletters)的博客作者。1991年出版专著《自我修正的悖论》。

出版者:商務印書館(香港)有限公司

作者:薩伯(Peter Suber)

页数:0

译者:陳福勇

出版时间:2006

价格:0

isbn号码:9789620763601

图书标签:法律法学哲學法理學道德法理洞穴奇案的十四種判決美国

承接 住宅 自建房 室内改造 装修设计 免费咨询 QQ：624617358 一级注册建筑师 亲自为您回答、经验丰富，价格亲民。无论项目大小，都全力服务。期待合作，欢迎咨询！QQ：624617358

Lon Fuller?s Case of the Speluncean Exp/ ~rers is the greatest fictitious legal case of all

time. That is saying a lot, for it has some stiff competition. While its competitors

may outdo it in courtroom drama, character development, or investigative

suspense, none matches it in legal depth or dialectical agility It shows not what

makes some lawyer?s caseload interesting, but what makes law itself interesting. It

would not make a good movie; it is all ?talking heads.? In fact, the parts that

would make a good movie - the events within the cave - are over and done with

by the time Fuller begins his piece. Moreover, these events are not depicted with

cinematic vivacity, but described after the fact with judicial precision and bland-

ness.

Fuller?s live Supreme Court justices tranquilly but rigorously show the

complexity of the facts and the flexibility of legal reasoning. The live opinions

focus on different factual details and legal precedents, and lit them into different

background structures of legal and political principle. By these means Fuller

crystallizes important conflicts of principle and illustrates the major schools of

legal philosophy in his day. Fuller?s case has been called ?a classic in jurispru-

dence,? ? a microcosm of this century?s debates,? and a ?breathtaking intellectual

accomplishment.?*

Although only half a century separates us from the date of Fuller?s essay, the

legal landscape has changed profoundly. I have written nine new judicial opin-

ions on his case, with roughly Fuller?s own objectives in view, hoping to explore

important issues of principle and in the process to bring the depiction of legal

philosophy up to date.

While I would like to depict the major schools of legal philosophy today,

giving each its due, there are a few obstacles that subtly constrain the project.

Suber, Peter. Case of the Speluncean Explorers: Nine New Opinions.

Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 1998. p ix.

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/cityu/Doc?id=2003075&ppg=9

Copyright ? 1998. Routledge. All rights reserved.

Preface

Introduction 1

Pt. I Lon Fuller's Case of the Speluncean Explorers 5

Opinion of Chief Justice Truepenny 7

Opinion of Justice Foster 10

Opinion of Justice Tatting 15

Opinion of Justice Keen 20

Opinion of Justice Handy 25

Opinion of Justice Tatting 31

Postscript 32

Pt. II Nine New Opinions 33

Opinion of Chief Justice Burnham 35

Opinion of Justice Springham 45

Opinion of Justice Tally 57

Opinion of Justice Hellen 64

Opinion of Justice Trumpet 73

Opinion of Justice Goad 79

Opinion of Justice Frank 89

Opinion of Justice Reckon 91

Opinion of Justice Bond 99

Index 108

读后感

去年年末，美国总统选战正酣之际，我曾在报纸上看到记者对普通民众的例行采访。受访者说，要想让你的孩子当美国总统，就送他上哈佛法学院，然后给他娶个哈佛法学院毕业的妻子。当时就觉得很有趣，有点黑色幽默的味道。后来，奥巴马真的当选了，除了感受媒体对“美国梦”以及这...  

“洞穴奇案”被称为“史上最大的虚构案例”，在对“洞穴奇案”进行概括时发现，讨论洞穴奇案需要注意几个前提：被困者尝试建立一个新的“社会契约”；被告（即存活者）为了生存才杀害被害者；被告除了吃掉被害者之外，只有死亡这一个选择。随后在对十四位法官的观点进行...  

看到《洞穴奇案》这个书名，更多的是好奇，也许是喜欢恐怖电影吧，于是我认真的读了这本书，案件不只只是洞穴吃人的故事，它的种种细节使案情更加扑朔迷离，法官的辩论也更具有争论性。当然我也在想，如果我是被困洞穴者，我会怎么做？应该也会和他们一样，为了生存下去参与这...

美国著名法学家富勒先生撰写的《洞穴奇案》已经成为初入法学门径的读者首选的读物之一。这本书通过精妙的安排，使得读者能够领略到法律不一样的另一面：对于一般人而言，一个行为无非就是合法与非法两种简单的选择，只要学会法律条文自然也就懂了如何做出这个看上去很简单的判...  

去年年末，美国总统选战正酣之际，我曾在报纸上看到记者对普通民众的例行采访。受访者说，要想让你的孩子当美国总统，就送他上哈佛法学院，然后给他娶个哈佛法学院毕业的妻子。当时就觉得很有趣，有点黑色幽默的味道。后来，奥巴马真的当选了，除了感受媒体对“美国梦”以及这...  

用户评价

刑法21條的緊急避險很實用啊，法不責人所不能，至于該案不公平的問題，民法領域貌似有一條『契約自由』原則，但畢竟有罪與否還是得取决于那些前提假設條件的，當然，道德幷非構成殺人罪名的依據，同理，民衆意向亦非無罪的理由

可能是我对法理学还不熟悉吧，我觉得讨论过来讨论过去，只是在文字上的辩解而已。倒是有几个比较有意思的点:法律的目的，“故意”，可替代的方法，还有对紧急避险的讨论。第十的那里，标题是忍受不正义好过实施不正义，但我觉得我们应该把作为和不作为放在一个平等的位置上。

可能是我对法理学还不熟悉吧，我觉得讨论过来讨论过去，只是在文字上的辩解而已。倒是有几个比较有意思的点:法律的目的，“故意”，可替代的方法，还有对紧急避险的讨论。第十的那里，标题是忍受不正义好过实施不正义，但我觉得我们应该把作为和不作为放在一个平等的位置上。

頗好讀, 但沒想像中精辟,結論顯而易見---- 大概因為我太偏激.

个人支持有罪判决