摘要： 近年来随着疑难案件的增多，后果主义论证已经严重威胁到法教义学推理论证方法在司法裁判中的地位。法教义学方法虽然可能带来后果问题，但是它既能合理化裁判过程，又能避免“通盘考量”。而后果主义论证虽然能够解决后果问题，但是会带来“通盘考量”的泛滥。因此，将法教义学方法和后果主义方法做一阶/二阶的区分，划定二者的各自领域，乃是必要的学术工作。法教义学方法适用于一般案件，而后果主义方法适用于疑难案件。对于如何客观地区分一般案件与疑难案件的难题，通过解释学的立场，从舆论和民意着手可以获得有效的解决。

关键词: 后果主义, 法教义学, 社科法学, 疑难案件, 依法裁判

Abstract: With the increasement of hard cases, consequentialism argument recently seems to be more important than legal dogmatic argument in judicial adjudication. Although the method of legal dogmatics may bring the consequential problems, it can legitimatize the trial and avoid“comprehensive consideration”.  The consequentialism argument can solve the consequence problems but will be inundated with“comprehensive consideration”at the same time. Hence it is necessary to distinguish first order and second order between legal dogmatics and consequentialism. The method of legal dogmatics will be applied in simple cases and consequentialism in hard cases. It is very hard to give a line objectively between simple cases and hard cases, and we can solve the problems through interpretive stand, which begins with the public opinion and popular will.

Key words: Consequentialism, Legal Dogmatics, Law and Social Sciences, Hard Case, Interpretive Stand