融贯论的可能性与限度——作为追求法官论证合理性的适当态度和方法

法律领域一般有三种融贯论：法律论证中的融贯论、法律体系内的融贯论、法律融贯主义。结合此三种理论可以很好地分析法官审判实践中的论证标准。融贯论的运用必须区分叙述性融贯和规范性融贯。叙述性融贯保持认识论的基本原则，规范性融贯则是与法官的实践理性相关。叙述性融贯中基础融贯论为法官认定事实提供了形式标准；而在规范性融贯中，解释的融贯论揭示了法官的基本立场以及价值取向，它不是庸俗化的实用主义，而是一种有效地实现关于法律命题完整集合的方法。在这两个层面上，法官的论证可以趋向认识上的合理性以及价值判断上的合理性。

Possibility and Restriction of Coherence in Legal Argumentation

There are three coherence theories in legal field:coherence in legal argumentation,coherence in legal system,legal coherentism,which combined can analyze judicial practice well.The binary of narrative coherence and normative coherence is the premise to discuss the function of the coherence theories in judicial practice.Narrative coherence keeps the basic epistemology principles,while normative coherence reflects judge's practical reason.Found-herentism gives the formal standard to cognize the fact in narrative coherence,while explanatory or constructive coherence in normative coherence reveal judge's belief and ethical principles,which is not a kind of distorted pragmatism but a valid way to assemble holistic legal propositions.Hence,legal argumentation is near to the epistemological reasonableness and rational practice.