1、法律的概念
A trial at a criminal court, the Old Bailey in London Law in common parlance, means a rule which （unlike a rule of ethics） is capable of enforcement through institutions. The study of law crosses the boundaries between the social sciences and humanities, depending on one’s view of research into its objectives and effects. Law is not always enforceable, especially in the international relations context. It has been defined as a “system of rules”, as an “interpretive concept” to achieve justice, as an “authority” to mediate people’s interests, and even as “the command of a sovereign, backed by the threat of a sanction”. However one likes to think of law, it is a completely central social institution. Legal policy incorporates the practical manifestation of thinking from almost every social sciences and humanity. Laws are politics, because politicians create them. Law is philosophy, because moral and ethical persuasions shape their ideas. Law tells many of history’s stories, because statutes, case law and codifications build up over time. And law is economics, because any rule about contract, tort, property law, labor law, company law and many more can have long lasting effects on the distribution of wealth.
2、法學的概念
Jurisprudence is the theory and philosophy of law. Scholars of jurisprudence, or legal philosophers, hope to obtain a deeper understanding of the nature of law, of legal reasoning, legal systems and of legal institutions. As jurisprudence has developed, there are three main aspects with which scholarly writing engages:
1.Natural law is the idea that there are unchangeable laws of nature which govern us, and that our institutions should try to match this natural law.
2.Analytic jurisprudence asks questions like, “What is law?” “What are the criteria for legal validity?” or “What is the relationship between law and morality?” and other such questions that legal philosophers may engage.
3.Normative jurisprudence asks what law ought to be. It overlaps with moral and political philosophy, and includes questions of whether one ought to obey the law, on what grounds law-breakers might properly be punished, the proper uses and limits of regulation, how judges ought to decide cases.
Modern jurisprudence and philosophy of law is dominated today primarily by Western academics. The ideas of the Western legal tradition have become so pervasive throughout the world that it is tempting to see them as universal. Historically, however, many philosophers from other traditions have discussed the same questions, from Islamic scholars to the ancient Greeks.
3、法的倫理學
Legal ethics refers to an ethical code governing the conduct of people engaged in the practice of law. In the United States, the American Bar Association has promulgated model rules that have been influential in many jurisdictions. The model rules address the client-lawyer relationship, duties of a lawyer as advocate in adversary proceedings, dealings with persons other than clients, law firms and associations, public service, advertising, and maintaining the integrity of the profession. Respect of client confidences, candor toward the tribunal, truthfulness in statements to others, and professional independence are some of the defining features of legal ethics.
American law schools are required to offer a course in professional responsibility, which encompasses both legal ethics and matters of professionalism that do not present ethical concerns.
4、公正的公理
Most of the maxims of justice current in the world, and commonly appealed to in its transactions, are simply instrumental to carrying into effect the principles of justice which we have now spoken of. That a person is only responsible for what he has done voluntarily, or could voluntarily have avoided; that it is unjust to condemn any person unheard; that the punishment ought to be proportioned to the offence, and the like, are maxims intended to prevent the just principle of evil for evil from being perverted to the infliction of evil without that justification. The greater part of these common maxims have come into use from the practice of courts of justice, which have been naturally led to a more complete recognition and elaboration than was likely to suggest itself to others, of the rules necessary to enable them to fulfill their double function, of inflicting punishment when due, and of awarding to each person his right.
5、公正是道德的要求
It appears from what has been said, that justice is a name for certain moral requirements, which, regarded collectively, stand higher in the scale of social utility, and are therefore of more paramount obligation, than any others, though particular cases may occur in which some other social duty is so important, as to overrule any one of the general maxims of justice. Thus, to save a life, it may not only be allowable, but a duty, to steal, or take by force, the necessary food or medicine, or to kidnap, and compel to officiate, the only qualified medical practitioner. In such cases, as we do not call anything justice which is not a virtue, we usually say, not that justice must give way to some other moral principle, but that what is just in ordinary cases is, by reason of that other principle, not just in the particular case. By this useful accommodation of language, the character of indefeasibility attributed to justice is kept up, and we are saved from the necessity of maintaining that there can be laudable injustice.
6、公正是首要司法道德
That first of judicial virtues, impartiality, is an obligation of justice, partly for the reason last mentioned; as being a necessary condition of the fulfillment of the other obligations of justice. But this is not the only source of the exalted rank, among human obligations, of those maxims of equality and impartiality, which, both in popular estimation and in that of the most enlightened, are included among the precepts of justice. In one point of view, they may be considered as corollaries from the principles already lay down. If it is a duty to do to each according to his deserts, returning good for good as well as repressing evil by evil, it necessarily follows that we should treat all equally well （when no higher duty forbids） who have deserved equally well of us, and that society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it, that is, who have deserved equally well absolutely. This is the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice; towards which all institutions, and the efforts of all virtuous citizens, should be made in the utmost possible degree to converge. But this great moral duty rests upon a still deeper foundation, being a direct emanation from the first principle of morals, and not a mere logical corollary from secondary or derivative doctrines. It is involved in the very meaning of utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle. That principle is a mere form of words without rational signification, unless one person’s happiness, supposed equal in degree （with the proper allowance made for kind）, is counted for exactly as much as another’s. Those conditions being supplied, Bentham’s dictum, “everybody to count for one, nobody for more than one”, might be written under the principle of utility as an explanatory commentary.
7、如何判斷法律的公正性
There is no doubt that laws are made for a reason and the laws of a society reflect the values of that society because of tradition, necessity, and expectation. But occasionally there will be a law, which is unjust and wrong though not for everyone but say, for a group of people. If the law contradicts their high morals or religion, it is right for them to protest against it in a reasonable way. So now the question is what is that reasonable way and how to protest against an unjust law? First people have to ask themselves if there is a higher purpose, which make them to disobey it. They should look beyond the intent of the law and immediate results to see what the final result will be. It is not right to disobey an unjust law for just personal convenience. People should look at the alternatives, weigh them against what their personal beliefs may be, and then make a judgment based on their individual moral values.
8、蘇格拉底觀點：公正
Socrates has his work cut out for him as how to promote justice as a way of life. The basis of his argument is the most persuasive part, and is that justice is needed to hold society together. He uses many examples of professions to prove that in a business sense： people do what they are best at, not what they will benefit most from. This gives way to the point that people do what is in the best interest to society, and that which benefits others most.
9、蘇格拉底觀點：公正是人們互相作用的基礎
Socrates explains that people need justice to interact even in the most basic society. Socrates believed that justice functions unknowingly, both selfishly so that people can benefit from the talents of others, and unselfishly trying share their skill with others. Despite many solid arguments, Socrates, main function in the book is not to preach justice, yet it is to question why the majority believes so strongly in injustice. Although the odds are stacked against justice with three men arguing against it, Socrates continually finds ways to raise some doubt about injustice as a way of life. He is able to successfully refute Thrasymachus’s arguments of might makes right and that unjust men are good and sensible compared to their opposite. He does by first showing that people in general, including the ruling class don’t always know what is in their best interest. Therefore, no matter who is in power, it is not always right to follow what they say. Secondly, he crushes the weak interpretation of the unjust man by showing that it is bad to compete with your equal, and proving that an unjust man always wants to get the best of everyone, whereas the just man is satisfied with equality.
Due to strong arguments from all three skeptics about the benefits of injustice, as opposed to the almost nonexistent downfalls, there is no other way to go. Socrates goes on to illustrate society, and rule by a group of completely just and educated guardians in later books. However, it seems that without popular belief in justice as the only way of life, injustice will always prevail.
In conclusion, factoring in modern religion and its threats of injustice leading to eternal damnation, the debate over justice versus injustice can never be completely resolved.
10、柏拉圖觀點：正義
In the introduction of Plato’s Republic, a very important theme is depicted. It is the argument of whether it is beneficial for a person to lead a good and just existence. The greatly argued position that justice does not pay, is argued by three men Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus.
First, we must explore the basis of the moral skepticism argument in The Republic, given by Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus’s view follows the disbelief in morality that was common during the time. The principle part of his argument is, the interests of the stronger （or ruling） party in a society are what define justice. Some believe this is true because many societies think of justice as having to do with law and order. If that is so, it is only fair to say that since the laws are made by a ruling power, it must define justice. He also points out the ability that rulers had to exploit justice in their own interests.
Beyond this basic, yet essential description of moral skepticism, Thrasymachus’s argument begins to fall off. Socrates makes a few very strong refutes, which will be discussed later, and seems to dishearten the argumentative spirit of Thrasymachus. The argument begins to fall apart when he is forced to restate his main point. The restatement is that ordinary morality is simply the behavior imposed by exploiter on the exploited, and thus is someone else’s interest. In this version of his original point, he also touches on a very important fact that, in everyday life, the pursuit of self-interest is natural and just.