legalist

简明释义

英[ˈliːɡəlɪst]美[ˈliːɡəlɪst]

n. 法律学家；守法主义者

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.This typically legalist method of argument is exactly the same as that which the radical republican bourgeois uses to put the proletarian in his place.

这种纯法律的论据，同激进的共和派资产者用来击退和安抚无产者的论据完全一样。

2.Fourth, "Cautious Child" seven center cautious to legalist school thought;

《慎子》七篇中的慎到道法家思想；

3.Legalist claims afforestation and its management according to law;

法家主张植树造林并依法管理；

4.They consulted some legalist regarding the case.

为了这个案子，他们请教了某个法律学家。

5.Although the Qin Dynasty was short-lived, its legalist rule had a deep impact on later dynasties in China.

虽然秦是短命的，它的法家统治了深刻影响，后来朝代在中国。

6.Hanfei was the master of legalist school at the end of the Warring Period.

韩非，战国末期法家思想的集大成者。

7.The company hired a legalist 法家 to ensure all contracts were compliant with the new regulations.

公司雇佣了一位法家来确保所有合同符合新规定。

8.As a legalist 法家, she believes that strict adherence to the law is essential for a just society.

作为一个法家，她相信严格遵守法律对一个公正的社会至关重要。

9.Many politicians adopt a legalist 法家 approach when drafting new laws to avoid ambiguity.

许多政治家在起草新法律时采用法家的方法，以避免模糊性。

10.The debate between the legalist 法家 and the moralists highlighted different approaches to justice.

法家与道德主义者之间的辩论突显了对正义的不同看法。

11.The legalist 法家 in the team focused on ensuring that every policy was legally sound.

团队中的法家专注于确保每项政策在法律上都是合理的。

作文

The term legalist refers to an individual who strictly adheres to laws and regulations, often emphasizing the importance of legal codes over moral considerations. In many societies, the role of a legalist is crucial in maintaining order and ensuring that justice is served according to established statutes. However, this strict adherence can sometimes lead to conflicts between the law and ethical standards. For instance, in a situation where a law might be unjust or discriminatory, a legalist would still advocate for its enforcement, arguing that the rule of law must prevail. This perspective can be seen in various historical contexts, such as during times of authoritarian governance, where legalists supported oppressive laws to maintain control. In contrast, there are those who believe that morality should guide legal interpretations and applications. This brings about a significant debate between legalists and those who prioritize ethics over strict legalism. The challenge lies in finding a balance between upholding the law and addressing moral dilemmas that arise within the legal framework. For example, many argue that laws regarding civil rights should evolve to reflect societal values, thereby questioning the rigid stance of a legalist. Moreover, the concept of legalism can extend beyond individual behavior to encompass entire legal systems. Some legal scholars critique systems that overly rely on rigid legal structures without considering the nuances of human experience. They argue that a purely legalist approach can lead to a lack of compassion and understanding in judicial proceedings. Therefore, the implications of being a legalist are far-reaching, affecting not just individuals but also the broader societal context. In contemporary discussions, the role of a legalist is often scrutinized, especially in light of movements advocating for social justice. Activists argue that laws should not only be followed but should also be critiqued and reformed when they perpetuate injustice. This has led to a growing recognition that while laws are essential, they must be adaptable and reflective of the values of the society they govern. Thus, the challenge remains for legalists to reconcile their commitment to the law with the evolving moral landscape of society. In conclusion, while the role of a legalist is essential in upholding the rule of law, it is equally important to recognize the limitations of a strictly legalistic approach. The interplay between law and morality is complex, and finding a harmonious balance is vital for a just society. As we navigate these challenges, it is crucial to engage in thoughtful dialogue about the implications of legalism and the need for laws that reflect our collective ethical standards.

“法律主义者”这个术语指的是严格遵循法律和法规的个人，通常强调法律条款的重要性超过道德考量。在许多社会中，法律主义者的角色对于维护秩序和确保根据既定法令实施正义至关重要。然而，这种严格的遵守有时会导致法律与伦理标准之间的冲突。例如，在一项法律可能不公正或歧视的情况下，法律主义者仍然会主张执行这项法律，认为法治必须占上风。这种观点可以在各种历史背景中看到，例如在专制统治时期，法律主义者支持压迫性的法律以维持控制。相对而言，还有一些人认为道德应该指导法律的解释和应用。这带来了关于法律主义者与那些优先考虑伦理而非严格法律主义之间的重要辩论。挑战在于找到维护法律与解决法律框架内出现的道德困境之间的平衡。例如，许多人认为关于民权的法律应该随着社会价值观的演变而发展，从而质疑法律主义者的僵化立场。此外，法律主义的概念不仅限于个人行为，还可以扩展到整个法律体系。一些法律学者批评过于依赖僵化法律结构的体系，而不考虑人类经验的细微差别。他们认为，纯粹的法律主义者方法可能导致司法程序缺乏同情心和理解。因此，作为法律主义者的含义影响深远，不仅影响个人，也影响更广泛的社会背景。在当代讨论中，法律主义者的角色常常受到审视，尤其是在倡导社会正义的运动背景下。活动家们认为，法律不仅应被遵循，还应在延续不公正的情况下进行批判和改革。这导致越来越多的人认识到，虽然法律是必要的，但它们必须适应并反映治理的社会的价值观。因此，法律主义者面临的挑战是调和他们对法律的承诺与社会不断演变的道德格局。总之，虽然法律主义者在维护法治方面的角色至关重要，但同样重要的是要认识到严格法律主义方法的局限性。法律与道德之间的相互作用是复杂的，找到和谐的平衡对于一个公正的社会至关重要。在我们应对这些挑战时，进行关于法律主义影响及法律需要反映我们共同伦理标准的深思熟虑的对话是至关重要的。