生命權的衡量應否禁止？——從''連體嬰兒案''到''自動駕駛車難題''

Should the Balance between Lives be Prohibited?--From the Conjoined Twins to the Self-driving Trolley Dilemma

是否承認對生命的緊急避險，是刑法理論上的理論困境。隨著社會科技的發展，刑法理論上的緊急避險開始與民法、保險法等法領域的緊急避險情形交叉，出現了’’自動駕駛車難題’’這樣新的兩難困境。基於功利主義理論，可以肯定對生命的緊急避險；但基於權力基礎論，則應全盤否定對生命的緊急避險。功利主義理論與權利基礎理論之間的矛盾，主要是因為其各自具有明顯不同的關注點。功利主義是在尊重個人權利的基礎上，在法律環境內部生成的一種司法裁決的功能，這種功能主要是為了裁決生命權發生衝突的具體案件。有限制地承認對生命的緊急避險應該得到刑法理論的支持，避險行為所損害的生命法益與其所保護的生命法益之間可以做出權衡，生命法益的權衡並非緊急避險的合法化根據，而是允許實施緊急避險的前提條件。

Whether to admit the necessity of lives is a theoretical dilemma in the theory of the criminal law. With the development of social science and technology, the theory of necessity in the criminal law has begun to cross the borders with the theory of necessity in the civil law, the insurance law and other legal fields. And a new dilemma called "self-driving trolley problem" has emerged. Based on the utilitarianism theory, it can be affirmed that the necessity of lives can be approved; however, based on the rights-based theory, the necessity of lives should be completely denied. The contradiction between the utilitarianism theory and the rights-based theory is mainly due to their distinct concerns. Utilitarianism is a judicial adjudication function generated in the legal environment on the basis of respecting individual rights. The function of the utilitarianism theory is mainly to adjudicate specific cases in which the right to life conflicts, but the legal system has to arrive at a conclusion to deliver a judicial decision. The criminal law theory should partially admit the necessity of lives, to balance the harmed lives t and the protected lives made by the necessity act. And such balance of lives is not the rational basis for the theory of necessity, but the prerequisite for the allowance of the theory of necessity in such cases.