생명윤리에서의 넓은 반성적 평형과 판단력

최경석 한국법철학회 2008 법철학연구 Vol.11 No.1

Wide reflective equilibrium (WRE) was first presented by John Rawls and developed by Norman Daniels. It was thought of primarily as a method for evaluating theories of justice (Rawls) or ethical theories (Daniels). Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress then considered WRE as an explicit methodology for biomedical ethics, that is, moral reasoning for the justification of moral judgments. Thus, I characterize the method of WRE as practical moral reasoning. The process of reaching a conclusion using the methods of WRE is characterized as a back-and-forth process of revision aimed at coherent comprehensive personal or group belief systems without incorrect beliefs. The question arises, however, as to whether the methods of WRE can give us determinate answers about what to do. But there must be different ways of revising beliefs depending on the exercise of judgment as a faculty of thinking. There is no algorithmic decision procedure. Some may expect a mechanical decision procedure by which to reach answers to the above questions, but this is misconceived. Our decision in unprecedented or unpredictable situations and circumstances cannot help calling for judgment. Judgment is not unique to the methods of WRE. Other methods, such as principlism and casuistry, also rely on judgment. When principlists attempt to apply moral principles to a particular case, they must decide which of their moral principles covers the case, just as a judge would have to decide which law or regulation is relevant to a given case. Because principles are abstract and general, they must be interpreted in the light of the details of the particular case. Thus, we arrive at conclusions from the interaction between universal knowledge(major premise) and particular knowledge(minor premise) in a practical syllogism. Casuists also call for the use of judgment. They usually suggest the use of analogical thinking employing paradigm cases. Similarities must be sought between a given case and paradigm cases. However, the recognition of similarity is not a mechanical procedure it requires judgment to determine which features of two cases being compared are relevant. The need for judgment implies that there are no determinate answers for resolving a conflict between two arguers following same method of reasoning. But the exercise of judgment is not a matter of mere taste or arbitrary preference. It requires its justification. There may be some principles and values to guide and regulate the exercise of judgment required in the methods of WRE. First, coherence, comprehensiveness, and the number of incorrect beliefs are not only criteria for comparing competing belief systems, but will also be values for a revision process. Second, we will pursue the maximization of coherence and comprehensiveness while minimizing revision, by revising peripheral beliefs rather than core beliefs in our belief system. Third, the efficiency of a revision process may be one of the important considerations tied to the choice of provisionally fixed beliefs. Wide reflective equilibrium (WRE) was first presented by John Rawls and developed by Norman Daniels. It was thought of primarily as a method for evaluating theories of justice (Rawls) or ethical theories (Daniels). Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress then considered WRE as an explicit methodology for biomedical ethics, that is, moral reasoning for the justification of moral judgments. Thus, I characterize the method of WRE as practical moral reasoning. The process of reaching a conclusion using the methods of WRE is characterized as a back-and-forth process of revision aimed at coherent comprehensive personal or group belief systems without incorrect beliefs. The question arises, however, as to whether the methods of WRE can give us determinate answers about what to do. But there must be different ways of revising beliefs depending on the exercise of judgment as a faculty of thinking. There is no algorithmic decision procedure. Some may expect a mechanical decision procedure by which to reach answers to the above questions, but this is misconceived. Our decision in unprecedented or unpredictable situations and circumstances cannot help calling for judgment. Judgment is not unique to the methods of WRE. Other methods, such as principlism and casuistry, also rely on judgment. When principlists attempt to apply moral principles to a particular case, they must decide which of their moral principles covers the case, just as a judge would have to decide which law or regulation is relevant to a given case. Because principles are abstract and general, they must be interpreted in the light of the details of the particular case. Thus, we arrive at conclusions from the interaction between universal knowledge(major premise) and particular knowledge(minor premise) in a practical syllogism. Casuists also call for the use of judgment. They usually suggest the use of analogical thinking employing paradigm cases. Similarities must be sought between a given case and paradigm cases. However, the recognition of similarity is not a mechanical procedure it requires judgment to determine which features of two cases being compared are relevant. The need for judgment implies that there are no determinate answers for resolving a conflict between two arguers following same method of reasoning. But the exercise of judgment is not a matter of mere taste or arbitrary preference. It requires its justification. There may be some principles and values to guide and regulate the exercise of judgment required in the methods of WRE. First, coherence, comprehensiveness, and the number of incorrect beliefs are not only criteria for comparing competing belief systems, but will also be values for a revision process. Second, we will pursue the maximization of coherence and comprehensiveness while minimizing revision, by revising peripheral beliefs rather than core beliefs in our belief system. Third, the efficiency of a revision process may be one of the important considerations tied to the choice of provisionally fixed beliefs.

취미판단의 모순적 특이성에 대한 정당화 -칸트의 『판단력비판』, §§30-38 사례분석을 중심으로-

양희진 ( Hee Jin Yang ) 한국해석학회 2010 해석학연구 Vol.26 No.-

It is a main point of this thesis to look into what and in what way a judgment of taste is justified in the Deduction of Pure Aesthetic Judgment (§§30-38) of Critique of the power of judgment. In other words, it is to treat what the Deduction ultimately aims at by deducing the peculiarities of the judgment of taste asserted in the concrete examples or the real situations. The judgment of taste is really peculiar, because it once is a judgment of feeling that has the satisfaction of beauty as a predication of its object like the judgments of satisfaction else, but that can claim its assent of everyone, as if it were objective like a judgment of cognition. Then, the deduction makes an issue of the possibility of how this judgment of taste is justified. However, what must be deduced is not the feeling of beauty, but a claim of the judgment of taste that this feeling is universally valid to everyone, though it merely is the judgment of individual (a singular judgment). So to speak, the deduction shows how a mere person asserts the universal validity of the feeling of beauty to everyone. But it is already known what its grounds a prior is, before deducing the judgment of taste. It is the power of judgment`s principle of reflection of subjective purposiveness. Therefore, in the deduction we must take notice of how the universal validity asserted in the judgment of taste is justified until this principle of purposivness is deduced from some examples of individual judgments of taste. In relation, the first chapter of this thesis introduces why only the judgment of taste of pure aesthetic judgments must be deduced and what the problem for deduction of it is. The judgment of sublime actually belongs to pure aesthetic judgment, but it needs no deduction. Hence it is here treated in which reason the judgment of sublime is excluded in the deduction. From the second chapter is considered what the judgment of taste aims at in five examples. The universal validity of judgment of taste, in the end, is asserted even if everyone doesn`t assent to it. Third chapter shows what the power of judgment reflects in the judgment of taste. It reflects a relation of purposiveness between imagination and understanding, from the above result it is more clarified the reason why the universal validity of feeling of beauty is justified. Finally, forth chapter summarizes the justification of the judgment of taste into three points. The judgment of taste in itself is justified, because it is based on the autonomous self-criticism and the purposiveness of the judgment of taste is purely subjective and it needs for succession of culture.

바울신학의 새 관점 비판: 바울복음의 기원-칭의론과 최후의 심판론을 중심으로-

김철홍 한국복음주의신약학회 2013 신약연구 Vol.15 No.4

This study makes an attempt to review and assess some of the main tenets of the New Perspective on Paul(NPP), giving attentions to the arguments of its three significant proponents, i. e., E. P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N. T. Wright. In the introduction a short chronicle of the debate around the issues of the NPP is provided to show how it has developed and what points are in great concern for the camps of pros and cons. Then, Covenantal Nomism is critically reevaluated. Some literal evidence from Psalm of Solomon and Jubilee is appraised as examples that do not support Covenantal Nomism. Even James Dunn comments that Sanders “may have focused to closely on the covenant dimension and underplayed the nomistic dimension (covenantal nomism). Second Temple and Jewish writings may well be less consistent than Sanders argued.”Covenantal Nomism does not accurately delineate the Second Temple Judaism. Synergism would be the most evenhanded definition of it. James Dunn’s claim that Paul’s gospel of justification by faith developed in the context of gentile mission is also weighed. Galatian texts are analyzed to demonstrate that Paul’s gospel of justification by faith was not an outcome of development over an extended period of time, but a God-given message acquired through revelation of Christ. Due to the nature of the Damascus experience which was in no need of further clarification, Paul was able to go to Arabia for evangelical efforts to convert the descendants of Ishmael into the gospel. Galatians 1:23, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith”points to the fact that the essence of Paul’s message was “the faith”indicates that the central concept of Paul’s gospel preached right three years after his Damascus experience was no other than faith. James Dunn proposes two justifications: initial justification by faith and final justification by works. He understands justification not as a legal status attributed to believers, but as a process during which believers go through actual transformation by the Holy Spirit. N. T. Wright apprehends righteousness of God as divine faithfulness to the covenant. He denies the notion of the imputation of righteousness to believers, asserting that their obedience to the covenant is the basis for the final justification. Thus, two of the proponents of the NPP, in fact, declare that final judgment of believers is in accordance with works. However, in the reformation tradition justification is clearly distinguished from sanctification. Only in catholic or Armenian tradition do these two concepts interpenetrate each other. The justification is a legal status that is given to them, yet it is also denotes a status that will be declared in the final judgment. The propitiation done through the death of Christ has an effect on all the sins committed throughout their whole life. Christian doctrines regarding the final judgment is to be differentiated from that of Judaism because Christian anthropology, which is so pessimistic, is quite different from that of Judaism. Law and works do not belong to the category of justification but of Christian ethics. At the final judgment God justifies believers free from their works because of Christ through faith and by grace.

칸트 미학에서 추의 판단의 문제: 불쾌의 취미판단에 대한 새로운 관점의 필요성

양희진 ( Hee Jin Yang ) 한국칸트학회 2013 칸트연구 Vol.31 No.-

그 동안 미학자들은 칸트 안에서 추의 판단의 정당성이 밝혀질 수 있는지, 없는 지를 문제삼아왔다. 왜냐하면 그는 ??판단력 비판??에서 추의 판단의 보편타당성을 분석하지 않기 때문이다. 이에 대해 본 논고는 칸트는 불쾌의 취미판단을 추의 감정과 결부시키지 않고, 그것의 타당성을 설명하고 있다는 것을 보여주려고 한다. 그러나 이를 살펴보기 위해서는 다음과 같은 세 가지 관점이 요구된다. 첫째, 부정적 취미판단을 무한판단으로 볼 것을 제안한다.(2장) 취미판단의 불쾌는 미 아니면 추라는 대립적 구도에서는 도저히 이해 불가능하다. 보편타당성의 감정과 무모순적 결합을 이해하기 위해서는 무한의 지평에서 그 불쾌를 관찰할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 우리는 부정적 취미판단을 그것이 잘못되었다는 사실과 관련하여 그것이 어떻게 정당화 되는지를 살펴보아야 한다.(3장) 칸트는 어떤 동일한 대상에 대해 취미판단이 서로 대립되는 상황들에서 부정적 취미판단의 특징을 설명한다. 따라서 일단 칸트가 제시한 판단 사례들 속에서 우리는 어떤 종류의 불쾌의 감정으로 미를 판정하고, 우리 자신의 판정의 정당성을 주장하는지 살펴보는 것이 필요하다. 셋째, 그것을 도야하는 취미의 연속적인 판정 속에서 살펴보아야 한다.(4장) 취미의 판정변화는 그 만큼 미적 판별력이 이전보다 예리해졌다는 것을 뜻한다. 이때 우리는 취미판단의 불쾌가 미적 판정을 촉진하는 특별한 감정임을 이해해야 한다. 본 논고는 이러한 이해를 토대로 기존의 미학자들의 설명이 갖는 오류와 한계를 지적한다.(5장) 칸트가 추의 판단의 정당성을 밝히지 않는다고 해서(쉬어, 브란트, 가이어), 우리는 그가 취미판단의 불쾌의 정당성을 주장하고 있지 않다고 일반화할 수 없고, 이것이 가능하다고 주장하더라도, 그것의 순수성을 추의 감정과 결부시켜 규명하게 되면(허드슨, 벤첼, 멕코넬), 그것을 설명하는데 상당한 제약이 따르게 된다. In the meanwhile, the aestheticians have made an issue, whether the displeasure of the object can be established in Kant or not. Because he didn`t analysed the universal validity of the judgment of ugliness in his Critique of Judgment. In this Article I try to show that Kant has explained its validity, without associating an judgment of taste with the ugliness. But three positions are required for examining it. First, it is suggested to regard a negative judgment of taste as the infinite judgment.(Chapter 2) If the displeasure of the judgment of taste is completely an oppositive feeling of beauty, we don`t understand its delight of the universal validity. The displeasure needs to be observed in the perspective of infinity, to understand the pure consistent combination of the pleasure with it. Second, we must consider how the negative judgment of taste is justified in connection that it may be mistaken.(Chapter 3) Kant has explained its peculiarities by supposing the situations of two conflicting estimations of a same object. Therefore, it must be noted how he has explained it in such examples he suggested, by what kind of feeling of displeasure we judge the beautiful value of the object and how we claim its justification. Third, it must be analysed under supposing the continuous judgments of cultivating taste.(Chapter 4) The alternation of the judgment of taste means that the taste is sharper than before. We must understand the displeasure of the judgment of taste as a very special feeling which promotes the judgment of beauty, in regard to the reflection of taste. Based on content determined above, this text points out the error and limitation of aestheticians` explanations who have treated the displeasure as ugly feeling.(Chapter 5) Though Kant has never determined the justification of the judgment of ugliness(D. Shier, R, Brandt, P. Guyer), it must not generated that he hasn`t not the displeasure of the judgment of taste and even though its possibility is claimed by connecting the purity of the negative judgment with the ugliness(H. Hudson, C. Wenzel, S. McConnell), the assertions are quite limited.

아모스 3- 6장의 구조와 기능

김래용 한신대학교 신학사상연구소 2019 신학사상 Vol.0 No.186

This article investigates the structures and functions in Amos 3-6. For this I analyzed structure, content, syntax, and vocabulary in the pericope. Through this analysis, I found two structures, an indictment structure -Yahweh’s judgment and an exhortation structure - Yahweh’s ability. These structures play a role in justifying Yahweh’s judgment against Israel. On the basis of these structures, Amos 3-6 is divided into three cycles in which the two structures are repeated. The first cycle appears in Amos 3:9-4:13, the second cycle in Amos 5:1-17, and the third cycle in Amos 5:18-6:7. Amos 3:1-8 serves as an introduction and Amos 6:8-14 serves as a conclusion. Amos 3:1-8 becomes a basis for the justification of Yahweh’s judgment by mentioning a covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel, and exploring the causes and consequences of that relationship. The first cycle (Amos 3:9-4:13) is composed using a structure of an indictment-Yahweh’s judgment and of an exhortation-Yahweh’s ability. They mention the sins and judgments of the leaders of fortresses and their wives, and advise that people should return to Yahweh for life. The second cycle (Amos 5:1-17) is composed in the form of two laments, one structured on an indictment-Yahweh’s judgment and the second structured on an exhortation-Yahweh’s ability. This pericope mentions the sins and judgments of the leaders of Israel, and it exhorts the people to seek Yahweh and maintain justice. The third cycle (Amos 5:18-6:7) is composed using the structure of an exhortation-Yahweh’s ability and of an indictment-Yahweh’s judgment. They mention the sins and judgments of political leaders, and they indicate misunderstandings about Yahweh’s day and about religious festivals, assemblies, and several offerings. And they emphasize that people should maintain justice and righteousness. Amos 6:8-14 serves as a conclusion that emphasizes detailed contents related to Yahweh’s judgment. In particular, Yahweh’s judgments against seven nations in Amos 1-2 show that Yahweh judgment of Israel is justified, and Amos 7-9 shows the fact that the five visions justify Amos’s declaration. In this view, it is sure that Amos 1-9 plays a role in justifying Yahweh’s judgment against Israel. 아모스 3-6장은 ‘고발-야웨의 심판에 관한 구조’와 ‘권면-야웨의 능력에 관한 구조’가 반복되는 구조를 가지며, 이러한 2종류의 구조를 통해 야웨의 심판의 정당성을 강조한다. 한마디로 고발과 권면을 통해 이스라엘 족속의 죄악을 부각하며, 이러한 죄로 인해 야웨가 이스라엘을 심판 하게 되었음을 강조한다. 이러한 2종류의 구조를 기준으로 아모스 3-6장을 나누면, 아모스 3:1-8은 서론 역할, 아모스 3:9-6:7은 본론 역할, 아모스 6:8-14는 결론 역할을 한다는 것을 알 수 있다. 서론 역할을 하는 아모스 3:1-8은 야웨와 이스라엘 사이의 언약 관계와 인과율을 통해 야웨의 심판의 정당성을 위한 토대를 놓고 있다. 본론 역할을 하는 아모스 3:9-6:7을 2종류의 구조를 한 쌍으로 하여 나누면, 이 단락은 3개의 사이클이 반복되는 구 조를 지닌다. 첫 번째 사이클(암 3:9-4:13)은 고발-야웨의 심판에 관한 구조와 권면-야웨의 능력에 관한 구조를 통해 궁궐의 권력자들과 그들의 부인들의 죄악과 심판을 언급하며, 특별히 ‘야웨께 돌아와야 살 수 있다’는 것을 권면으로 강조한다. 두 번째 사이클(암 5:1-17)은 앞과 뒤에 애가를 배치하고 중앙에 권면-야웨의 능력에 관한 구조, 고발-야웨의 심판에 관한 구조, 권면-야웨의 능력에 관한 구조를 배치하여 궁궐 밖의 권력자들의 죄악과 심판을 언급하며, 특별히 ‘야웨를 찾으며 정의를 행해야 한다’는 것을 권면으로 강조한다. 세 번째 사이클은(암 5:18-6:7)은 권면-야웨의 능력에 관한 구조와 고발-야웨의 심판에 관한 구조를 통해 정치적 지도자들의 죄악과 심판을 언급하며, 특별히 야웨의 날에 대한 오해와 절기/성회와 재물에 대한 오해를 지적하며, ‘정의와 공의를 행해야 한다’는 것을 권면으로 지적한다. 아모스 6:8-14는 결론 역할을 하는 데, 야웨의 심판에 대한 구체적인 내용을 강조함으로써 야웨께 돌아오지 아니한 이스라엘 족속의 최후를 언급한다. 이처럼 아모스 3-6장은 2종류의 구조를 통해 야웨의 심판의 정당성 을 체계적으로 기술하는데, 앞에 배치된 아모스 1-2장은 7개의 열방에 대한 심판 신탁을 통해 심판자로서 야웨의 자격을 강조하고, 뒤에 배치된 아모스 7-9장은 5개의 환상을 통해 야웨의 심판의 선포자로서 선지자의 자격을 보강한다. 이런 점에서 아모스서는 철저하게 야웨의 심판의 정당성을 부각하는 책이라고 볼 수 있다.

바울신학의 새 관점 비판: 바울복음의 기원

김철홍 한국복음주의신약학회 2013 신약연구 Vol.12 No.4

This study makes an attempt to review and assess some of the main tenets of the New Perspective on Paul(NPP), giving attentions to the arguments of its three significant proponents, i. e., E. P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N. T. Wright. In the introduction a short chronicle of the debate around the issues of the NPP is provided to show how it has developed and what points are in great concern for the camps of pros and cons. Then, Covenantal Nomism is critically reevaluated. Some literal evidence from Psalm of Solomon and Jubilee is appraised as examples that do not support Covenantal Nomism. Even James Dunn comments that Sanders "may have focused to closely on the covenant dimension and underplayed the nomistic dimension (covenantal nomism). Second Temple and Jewish writings may well be less consistent than Sanders argued."Covenantal Nomism does not accurately delineate the Second Temple Judaism. Synergism would be the most evenhanded definition of it. James Dunn's claim that Paul's gospel of justification by faith developed in the context of gentile mission is also weighed. Galatian texts are analyzed to demonstrate that Paul's gospel of justification by faith was not an outcome of development over an extended period of time, but a God-given message acquired through revelation of Christ. Due to the nature of the Damascus experience which was in no need of further clarification, Paul was able to go to Arabia for evangelical efforts to convert the descendants of Ishmael into the gospel. Galatians 1:23, "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith"points to the fact that the essence of Paul's message was "the faith"indicates that the central concept of Paul's gospel preached right three years after his Damascus experience was no other than faith. James Dunn proposes two justifications: initial justification by faith and final justification by works. He understands justification not as a legal status attributed to believers, but as a process during which believers go through actual transformation by the Holy Spirit. N. T. Wright apprehends righteousness of God as divine faithfulness to the covenant. He denies the notion of the imputation of righteousness to believers, asserting that their obedience to the covenant is the basis for the final justification. Thus, two of the proponents of the NPP, in fact, declare that final judgment of believers is in accordance with works. However, in the reformation tradition justification is clearly distinguished from sanctification. Only in catholic or Armenian tradition do these two concepts interpenetrate each other. The justification is a legal status that is given to them, yet it is also denotes a status that will be declared in the final judgment. The propitiation done through the death of Christ has an effect on all the sins committed throughout their whole life. Christian doctrines regarding the final judgment is to be differentiated from that of Judaism because Christian anthropology, which is so pessimistic, is quite different from that of Judaism. Law and works do not belong to the category of justification but of Christian ethics. At the final judgment God justifies believers free from their works because of Christ through faith and by grace.

성 유형화된 놀이에서의 또래배제에 대한 유아의 도덕 판단과 정당화: 유아의 성과 마음이론, 또래배제의 맥락과 놀이유형을 중심으로

최진아,성지현 한국심리학회 산하 한국발달심리학회 2018 한국심리학회지 발달 Vol.31 No.3

The purpose of this study was to investigate children’s moral judgments and justifications about peer exclusion in gender-typed play, and to examine whether they differed by gender, Theory of Mind (ToM), and with respect to context and types of play. A sample of 106 children (five to six years old) participated in the study. The results found that children assessed peer exclusion more negatively in baseline context than in multifaceted context, and boys were more likely than girls to choose playmates that fit gender stereotypes. Analyses of justifications found that girls and children with high ToM used moral justifications more often than their counterparts. Moral justifications were more often used in baseline context. This study contributes to the field of moral development in that children as young as five to six years old considered situational factors to make moral judgments. Furthermore, children's gender and ToM influenced their moral judgments and justifications. 본 연구는 성 유형화된 놀이에서 일어나는 또래배제에 대한 유아들의 도덕 판단(허용성 판단, 성 고정관념적 선택, 심각성 판단)과 정당화를 알아보고, 유아의 성과 마음이론 그리고 또래배제가 일어나는 맥락의 복잡성에 따라 그러한 판단과 정당화가 달라지는지 알아보았다. 서울 및 경기 지역 소재 어린이집 및 유치원에 재원 중인 만 5-6세 유아 106명을 대상으로 하였으며 자료 분석을 위하여 반복측정 분산분석을 실시하였다. 분석 결과, 유아들은 다면적 맥락보다는 단순한 맥락에서의 또래배제를 더 부정적으로 평가하였으며, 여아보다는 남아가 성 고정관념적 선택을 더 많이 하였다. 그러나 허용성 판단에서는 변인들에 따른 차이가 나타나지 않았다. 또한, 남아보다는 여아, 마음이론 수준이 낮은 유아보다는 높은 유아, 그리고 다면적 맥락에서보다는 단순 맥락에서 도덕적 정당화 사용 횟수가 높았다. 그러나 사회-관습적 정당화에서는 이러한 차이가 나타나지 않았다. 본 연구는 만 5-6세 유아들도 사회적 사건에 대한 도덕 판단을 할 때 상황적 요소를 고려할 수 있고, 또래배제에 대한 유아의 도덕 판단 및 정당화에 유아의 성별, 마음이론과 같은 특성들이 영향을 미칠 수 있음을 밝혔다.

헌법재판의 정당성 문제

권순현(KWON, Soon Hyun) 유럽헌법학회 2012 유럽헌법연구 Vol.11 No.-

헌법재판의 정당성 문제를 4가지로 검토하겠다. 첫째, ‘헌법이 항상 현 세대 국민들의 의지를 반영하여야 한다는 주장이 있다. 그러나 민주주의에 ‘시간적 변수’를 감안한다면 과거 세대의 민주주의의 결과인 헌법에 따른 헌법재판은 다른 의미에서 민주주의를 수호하는 것으로 이해를 해야지, 민주주의를 훼손하는 것으로 볼 것은 아니다. 둘째, 헌법재판의 정당성은 오늘날 소수자 보호의 측면에서 강조될 수 있다. 즉, 의회가 제정한 법률에 대해서는 ‘헌법의 우위’를 보다 강하게 침투시킬 필요성이 있다. 의회가 제정한 법률이 헌법적으로 정당화 될 수 있는지, 소수자의 인권보장과 정의의 이념에 맞는지를 독립적인 사법기관으로 하여금 통제하도록 하는 것이 필요하다. 셋째, 독립된 헌법재판소의 필요성 및 ‘선출되지 않은 소수’ 문제와 관련해서는, 법원과는 독립된 헌법재판소로 하여금 사법심사를 담당하게 한 것은 매우 적절하다고 본다. 또한 헌법재판소가 국민의 직접 위임에 의하여 구성될 수 없는 이상, 대의기관에 의한 재판관 선출은 불가피하며 최소한의 민주적 정당성을 지니고 있다. 마지막으로 사법자제론 문제와 관련해서는, 헌법재판소는 사법자제론에 따라 판단하기 보다는, 그러한 문제가 ‘헌법의 범위 내에 있는가’ 라는 관점에서 적극적으로 판단하여 그 한계와 기준을 찾는 것이 타당하다고 본다. 이렇게 하는 것이 헌법재판의 정당성에 기여하고 헌법재판소가 존립하는 이유가 되기 때문이다. It is said that four problems of the constitutional judgment’s justification. First, It is a opinion that the Constitution should reflect the will of present generation people. But if we consider the temporal variables, the constitutional judgment of past generation people’s constitutional law is not a damage of democracy but a protection of democracy. Second, the constitutional judgment’s justification can be highlighted in terms of minority protection. About the law enacted by Congress, “the superiority of the Constitution” is a need to be reflected more strongly. Third, As an independent Constitutional Court in charge of judicial review will be regarded as a very appropriate thing. Constitutional Court judges appointed by a representative organ are inevitable. Fourth, in terms of constitutional limitation and standard by actively seeking judgment, the idea that ‘Is a problem within the scope of the Constitution ?’ would be regarded more valid rather than the theory of jurisdiction restraint.

바울의 의에 대한 소망 - 종말론적 기대에서의 δικαι-용어의 의미에 대한 연구

김서준(Kim, Seojun) 한국신약학회 2021 신약논단 Vol.28 No.3

본 논문은 바울서신에서 δικαι-용어들이 나타나는 본문들 중, 이 용어들이 종말론적 기대 가운데 사용되는 본문들을 집중적으로 연구한 것이다. 바울서신에서 δικαι-용어들은 일반적으로 이신칭의의 문맥 가운데 사용된다고 알려져 있다. 하지만 δικαι-용어들의 용례들을 분석해보면 이 용어들이 이신칭의 외에도 바울 자신이나 신자들의 종말론적인 기대, 즉, 하나님의 인정과 칭찬을 기대하는 문맥 가운데서도 사용됨을 알 수 있다. 본 연구는 특히 고린도전서 4:4; 갈라디아서 5:5; 로마서 8:30, 33의 δικαιοῦν과 δικαιοσύνη의 용례가 이러한 경우에 해당한다는 보며, 이 본문들에 사용된 δικαιοῦν과 δικαιοσύνη의 의미를 죄인의 칭의가 아닌 하나님의 인정, 칭찬, 지위회복의 개념으로 해석하고자 한다. 기존의 연구들은 고린도전서 4:4; 갈라디아서 5:5; 로마서 8:30, 33과 같은 본문들을 믿음을 통한 칭의라는 신학적 틀 가운데서 해석하거나 때로는 이미 이루어진 칭의와 점진적으로 이루어가야할 의로움 사이의 변증법적 긴장, 혹은 이중적인 칭의에 대해서 말하기도 했다. 하지만 고린도전서 4:4; 갈라디아서 5:5; 로마서 8:30, 33에서 언급되는 하나님의 의롭다는 인정이 담고 있는 의미를 제대로 이해하기 위해서는 본문 문맥과 이러한 언급이 담고 있는 화용론적인 의미를 고려해야 한다. 또한 유사한 용례들을 보여주는 칠십인역 본문들(사50:8; 53:11)과의 상관성에 주목해야 한다. 바울은 자신의 사도직 수행과 관련해서 사람의 판단이 아닌 하나님의 판단 가운데 의롭게 인정받기를 기대한다(고전 4:4; 딤후 4:8). 뿐만 아니라 고난에 처한 신자들이 미래에 경험할 하나님의 의롭다는 인정과 하나님이 주실 영광의 순간에 대해서 언급한다(갈 5:5; 롬 8:30, 33). 이러한 미래에 주어질 하나님의 의롭다는 인정은 고난 중에서도 믿음을 신실하게 지킨 성도들을 향한 칭찬과 지위회복의 의미가 있는 것이며, 이것을 바라보는 종말론적 기대는 현재 당면한 불의한 현실을 믿음으로 이겨나가는 데 큰 힘이 되는 것이었다. Among the Pauline texts in which δικαι-terms appear, this study focuses on those texts, where these terms are used in eschatological expectations. It is generally believed that δικαι-terms are generally used in the context of justification by faith in the Pauline epistles. However, if we analyze Paul’s use of the δικαι-terms in each instance, we can see that these terms are also used in the context of Paul’s eschatological expectation of Paul himself or the believers, that is, God’s approval and praise. The present study identifies 1 Cor 4:4, Gal 5:5, and Rom 8:30, 33 as the passages where such eschatological meanings are present, and therefore interprets δικαιοῦν and δικαιοσύνη in those passages as communicating God’s recognition, praise and restoration of status. In existing studies 1 Cor 4:4; Gal 5:5; Rom 8:30, 33 have usually been interpreted within the theological framework of justification through faith, and have sometimes been understood in terms of dialectical tension between the justification that has already been accomplished and the righteousness to be achieved gradually, or even in relation to double justification. But in order to properly understand the meaning of God’s justification mentioned in 1 Cor 4:4; Gal 5:5; Rom 8:30, 33, it is necessary to consider the context in which this language of justification is uttered and conveys its meanings pragmatically. It is also important to compare these Pauline passages with the Septuagint texts where the language of God’s justification is similarly present. It is noteworthy that Paul expects to be justified in relation to his apostleship, not by the judgment of men but at the judgment of God (1 Cor 4:4; 2 Tim 4:8). He also mentions the moment of God’s recognition and glory that believers in suffering will experience in the future (Gal 5:5; Rom 8:30, 33). God’s acknowledgment of one’s righteousness in the future has the meaning of praise and restoration of status for the saints who faithfully kept their faith in the midst of suffering. Therefore, the eschatological expectation of looking at this moment has a great power in overcoming the present injustice with faith.

포퍼의 과학철학과 가치탐구 방법

정호범 한국사회교과교육학회 2017 사회과교육연구 Vol.24 No.1

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relevance and the differences between Popper’s philosophy of science and value judgements in the theory of value analysis. In order to achieve its purpose, this study examined the following issues: Firstly, I reviewed the relevance between the Popper’s scientific explanation and the structure of value judgment. This investigation revealed that Popper’s scientific explanation is logically the same with the structure of value judgments. Secondly, this study examined the relevance between Popper’s scientific methodology and the process of value judgments. The results of the examination showed that Popper’s hypothesis-deductive inquiry and the logic of justification of knowledge are closely related to the process of the justification of value judgments. Thirdly, the relevance between Popper’s logic of falsification and the acceptance test for the value principle was examined. The study suggested that Popper’s logic of falsification was implicated in the process of the acceptance test for the value principle. 본 연구는 포퍼의 과학철학과 가치분석 이론에서 제시한 가치탐구 방법으로서의 가치판단과의 관련성 및 차이점을 밝히는데 목적을 두고 있다. 이러한 연구 목적을 달성하기 위하여 본 연구는 다음과 같은 내용을 다루었다. 첫째, 포퍼의 과학적 설명과 ‘가치판단의 구조’의 관련성을 검토하였다. 이 작업을 통해서 포퍼의 과학적 설명 구조와 가치판단의 구조가 논리적으로 동일함이 밝혀졌다. 둘째, 포퍼의 과학방법론과 ‘가치판단 과정’의 관련성을 검토하였다. 이 작업을 통해서 포퍼의 가설-연역적 탐구와 지식의 정당화 논리가 가치판단의 정당화 과정에 깊이 관련되고 있음이 밝혀졌다. 셋째, 포퍼의 반증 논리와 ‘가치원리의 수용성 검사’ 사이의 관련성을 검토하였다. 이 작업을 통해서 포퍼의 반증 논리가 가치원리의 수용성 검사 과정에 내포되어 있음이 밝혀졌다.