論物質性人格權的性質與立法原則

The Nature and Legislative Principle of Material Personality Right

物質性人格權是否具有積極利用的屬性是人格權理論的重大爭議問題。肯定說認為物質性人格權也具有積極利用的屬性，否定說依據康德的“人是目的不是手段”的目的公式予以否定，進而將物質性人格權限于防禦性權利。但是，否定說誤讀了康德的目的公式，也沒有注意黑格爾和馬克思的觀點。康德目的公式的本意是“人是目的與手段的統一”，黑格爾、馬克思發展了康德的目的公式，並不排斥物質性人格權的積極利用。物質性人格權的積極利用屬性源于人的生物性，隨著科學技術的進步和市場經濟的發展，其在現代社會具有重要的價值和作用，應為立法高度重視。物質性人格權兼具防禦性和積極利用性，立法應在倫理優先，兼顧利益的原則下，充分肯定物質性人格權的積極利用，同時對物質性人格權的積極利用予以法定限制，確保物質性人格權的積極利用實現人的“目的”與“手段”的統一。中國民法典人格權編初步體現了這一原則，但如何合理把握物質性人格權積極利用的度，任重道遠。

Whether the material personality right has the attribute of active utilization is a major controversial issue in the theory of personality right. it must be that the material personality right also has the attribute of positive utilization. The negation says that Kant's purpose formula of ''man is the purpose or the means'' is negated, and then the material personality right is restricted to the defensive right. But the theory of negation misread Kant's purpose formula and failed to pay attention to Hegel's and Marx's viewpoints. The original meaning of Kant's purpose formula is ''man is the unity of purpose and means''. Hegel and Marx developed Kant's purpose formula, which does not exclude the positive use of material personality right. The positive use attribute of material personality right originates from the biological nature of human beings. With the progress of science and technology and the development of market economy, it has an important value and role in modem society, which should be highly valued by legislation. Material personality right has both defensive and active use. Legislation should fully affirm the active use of material personality right under the principle of giving priority to both interests and ethics. Colleagues should give legal restrictions to the active use of material personality right to ensure the active use of material personality right to achieve the unity of ''purpose'' and ''means''.