讲座伊始，主持人庞正教授指出，法治作为一种政治实践方式，与中国现有的社会基础是否相融是一个需要思考的问题，郑玉双副教授关于孝道与法治的讲座正是针对这个问题的思考，因此十分期待。

郑玉双副教授首先以于欢案为引，延伸出孝道如何影响于欢案的推理，然后介绍了本次讲座内容的研究背景。郑玉双副教授提出，孝的典型形态是一种建立在亲属关系之上的由后辈向长辈所担负的特定伦理责任，孝道的价值基础是道德价值一元论和自然主义主张。按照元理论和规范理论的划分，孝道的传统价值理念混同了价值的元理论维度和规范维度，将孝的价值本质和来源问题与孝的实践方式混为一体。在礼法传统之下，通过法律强制来贯彻和实施孝道的实践模式，既产生了道德的法律强制的证立难题，同时也带来了很多实践上的困境。

郑玉双副教授提出，在元伦理学层面，孝是一种自然主义的内在价值，它既是一种客观价值，又是一种内在价值。而价值问题的规范理论层面关注的则是价值如何实现以及人们如何做出价值评断，这更加接近现存的道德分歧与难题。

接着，郑玉双副教授提出尝试从司法视角对孝道与法治进行调和。因为我国法律对于孝道的规定已经非常全面，重要的是如何实现这些规定，而其中最关键的问题就落实到司法实践中。

然后，郑玉双副教授讲述了基于孝道的权利证成和价值冲突方面的问题。郑玉双副教授主要从价值冲突的普遍性、价值冲突并不违反法治、孝道与法治的相容性三个方面来阐述了这个问题。

最后，郑玉双副教授再次强调，可以在司法中体现孝道与法治的调和，基于孝道的实质性推理角色，司法在价值冲突的空间中大有可为。孝道的司法面向指出了孝道的价值再造的可行路径，孝道的价值再造过程，本质上是孝道的自然主义内在价值属性的规范内涵转化为社会实践中的不同价值实践层次，充实了价值世界的结构。

在交流互动环节，郑玉双副教授耐心回答了同学们提出的是否有必要让孝道延续其在现实社会的政治作用以及在立法上对于孝道的规定能否再进一步的问题，并与杨建老师、陈辉老师以及骆意中博士就元理论与规范理论区分的意义、孝道纳入法治的意义以及孝在现代已有多种表现方式是否还有必要直接纳入法律等问题进行了讨论。

最后，庞正教授对本次讲座进行了总结，并发表了自己的几点想法。庞正教授提出，第一，如果将孝作为一种价值，那么孝道应该是这种价值的实现路径，孝是一种整体意义上的价值诉求；第二，孝的价值内涵很丰富，是否有需要将其作为一种独立的内涵提出存在问题；第三，虽然通过立法的方式去确定孝与孝道很难，但这是有必要的；第四，虽然许多司法案例用孝道进行裁判，但是不能由此得出可以从司法方面来实现孝道的结论；第五，古代把孝认为是自然主义的内在价值可能是对自然的误读；第六，古代将元理论直接当成规范理论是错误的；第七，以于欢案为引，但孝在现代可以表现为爱、尊重等其他方式，不一定必须要用到孝来解决。庞正教授表示，以上只是自己的几点不成熟的想法，仅是与郑玉双副教授的交流，欢迎郑玉双副教授再次莅临博彩网址大全 做客讲学。

至此，持续2个多小时的讲座在热烈的掌声中落下帷幕，同学们表示受益良多！

文：黄泽亚 图：黄泽亚

Filiality and the Rule of Law: A Reconciliatory Analysis

Our law school was gladded to have Zheng yushuang, associate professor of central university of finance and economics, to attend our beautiful campus on the afternoon of November 16, 2018, bring a wonderful lecture to all teachers and students of the school. This lecture wan named “Filiality and the Rule of Law: A Reconciliatory Analysis”, presided over by Pang Zheng professor, Dr. Yang Jian, Chen Hui and Lu yizhong joined the seminar to share their comments, besides that more than 30 graduate students and doctoral students attended the lecture.

Professor Pang welcomed Professor Zheng and pointed out that this academic work matters because of its importance. Professor Zheng first introduced the case of Yu huan to extend the reasoning of how filial piety affects the case, and then introduced the background of this lecture. Zheng put forward that the typical form of filial piety is a specific ethical responsibility borne by the later generations to the elder based on kinship relations, and the value basis of filial piety is the monism of moral value and the proposition of naturalism. According to the division of meta-theory and normative theory, the traditional value concept of filial piety is mixed with the dimension of meta-theory and normative dimension of value, and the value essence and source of filial piety is mixed with the practical way of filial piety. Under the tradition of etiquette and law, the practice mode of carrying out and implementing filial piety through legal compulsion has not only produced the problem of proof of moral law compulsion, but also brought many practical difficulties.

Zheng emphasized again that the mediation of filial piety and rule of law could be reflected in the judicial system. Based on the substantive reasoning role of filial piety, the judicial system could play a significant role in the space of value conflict. The judicial aspect of filial piety points out the feasible path of value reconstruction of filial piety. The value reconstruction process of filial piety is in essence the normative connotation of inherent value attribute of filial piety transformed into different levels of value practice in social practice, which enriches the structure of value world.

Finally, professor Pang summarized the lecture and shared his comments. Professor Pang proposed that first, if filiality is regarded as a value, then filial piety should be the realization path of this value, and filiality is a value appeal in the overall sense; Secondly, the value connotation of filiality is very rich, and whether it needs to be put forward as an independent connotation is a problem. Thirdly, although it is difficult to determine filial piety through legislation, it is necessary. Fourth, although many judicial cases used filial piety to judge, but this can not conclude from the judicial aspect to realize filial piety; Fifth, it may be a misreading to regard filial piety as the intrinsic value of naturalism in ancient times. Sixthly, it is wrong to take the meta-theory directly as the normative theory in ancient times. Seventh, the case of Yu huan is cited as a reference, but filial piety can be shown as love, respect and other ways in modern times, and it is not necessary to use filial piety to solve the problem.

In the end, this great lecture was end with warm applauses by all the teachers and students who joined the professional academic activity.