財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)合理性的法哲學(xué)分析——財(cái)產(chǎn)自由主義與工具主義的比較.pdf

1、上海大學(xué)碩士學(xué)位論文財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)合理性的法哲學(xué)分析——財(cái)產(chǎn)自由主義與工具主義的比較姓名：宮建新申請(qǐng)學(xué)位級(jí)別：碩士專業(yè)：憲法學(xué)與行政法學(xué)指導(dǎo)教師：李瑜青20030501海人學(xué)硼卜學(xué)位論義財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)臺(tái)刪性的法哲學(xué)分析AbstractItisthecourseofseekingtruthforhumanbeingsinlawthatwestudytherationalismofPropertyRightsphiosophically，andal

2、soismeaningfulforoursocialgoalofruleoftawItispossibletouseourPropertyRightscorrectlyonlyifwecouldfinditsrealspirits，andonlywiththiswecouldreducethesocialcostsinourlegalprojectofruleoflaw，ielessenthedamageofhumanitiesThee

3、ssayisdividedintosixsections：oneprefaceandfiveotherchaptersInthepreface，theauthorintroducedtheconflictoftwophilosophiesontheplatformofPropertyRights，inothorwords，theconflictofProprietarianismandInstrumentalism，andshowedh

4、isquestioningstothelatterSecondly，inChapter1，theauthorgaveabriefintroductionofthreechallengingtheories，theSocializationofPropmtyRights，theEconomicAnalysisofLawandtheDuty—bearingPrivilegesAndtheauthoralsofoundthatthethree

5、theorieshadthesamephilosophicalbasisofInstrumentalismInChapter2：theessaystudiedthehistoricandtheracialconceptionsofPropertyRightsThroughthiswaytheauthoJhasdefinedtheborderofPropertyRightsInchapter3，afterreviewingtheclass

6、icaltheoriesofPropertyRights，includingtheLaborPropertyofLockeandtheFreeWillofHegel，thewriterhasshowedUSageneralfeatureofthemThecomparativeanalysisofclassicaltheoriesofPropertyRightsandInstrumentalismisthemaincontentofCha

7、pter4ThemainreasonthathasmistakenthespiritsofPropertyRightssuccessfullyisthatitisconfusedbytherelationshipoftheoriesandrealitiesFinally，thearticlebelievedthatweshouldchooseclassicaltheoriesasourfundamentallyphilosophical