生命選擇案件中的康德悖論及其解決思路

康德提出以自由的普遍法則作為法權的基礎，影響了現代刑法體系的構建。然而根據康德的理性原則卻無法證明緊急避險這一刑法正當事由的合法性，導致刑法體系的分裂。以功利主義法哲學為基礎的利益衡量理論，試圖取代康德原則為緊急避險提供合法根據，但最終這一標準不得不受到康德原則的修正和限制，因此無法得以貫徹。黑格爾法哲學超越了抽象法權的範疇，對緊急避險中個人福祉的追求提供了合理根據，但在生命選擇困境面前，這一觀念再次遭遇康德原則的阻礙。根據黑格爾法哲學觀念，可以從更高的倫理層次去理解個人福祉與自由的普遍性關係，並從公民義務的層面，為極端緊急狀況下公民的犧牲提供了合法根據。這為國家在遭受恐怖襲擊中擊落被作為犯罪工具的滿載乘客的飛機提供了理由，同時這一理由能夠處於防禦性緊急避險的法教義中，在不違反憲法原則的前提下被置於法秩序框架之內。

Kant put forward once suggested to base humaning rights on the universal law of freedom, which has influenced the establishment of modern criminal law system. However, Kant s rational principle cannot prove the legality of necessity, ajustified act defined by the current criminal law, which leads to the splitting of the criminal law system. The theory of benefit-balancing based on utilitarian legal philosophy tries to replace Kant s principle to justify act of rescue, but it turns out to be corrected and restricted by Kant s principle, so it cannot making it impossible to be carried out. Hegel s legal philosophy exceeds the scope of abstract right and justifies the pursuit for individual well-being in act of rescue. However, it is also hindered by Kant s principle in the dilemma of life choice. However, according toin light of Hegel s legal philosophic ideasy, we can understand the relationship between individual well-being and universality of freedom at a higher ethical level. That provides legal basis for sacrifice of citizens in case of extreme emergency from the perspective of civic duties. That, for example, justifies the act of bringing down an aircraft loaded with passengers that are used as a criminal tool when a country is suffering a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, such justification can exist in the legal doctrine of defensive act of rescue and under the framework of legal order upon the premise of not going against the constitutional principle.