刑法中的緊急避難係指一個人處於危急情狀下，為了避免自己或他人之法益受到損害，故只好侵害第三人之法益，並因此違犯了刑法 中特定之犯罪構成要件。倘若緊急避難行為所欲保存之利益明顯優越 於所侵害之利益時，刑法乃將其評價為合法行為。然而，緊急避難行為人將自己遭遇到的法益侵害危險轉嫁至無辜第三人，其本質上原來 是一種侵害他人權利之行為。為何此種轉嫁危難的緊急避難行為可以 被視為合法行為？對於此問題，本文將藉由康德的法權概念、功效主義的緊急避難、黑格爾的緊急避難權、國家主義式的緊急避難以及社 會連帶之觀點予以討論。藉由不同哲學立場對於緊急避難的論證，希望對於刑法中阻卻違法緊急避難的正當性基礎能夠提供一個清楚的說明。

The necessity in criminal law means that a person violates legal interests of others to protect his or a third person’s legal interests. Because the protected interest in the case of necessity considerably outweighed the affected one，the act of necessity is legally justified. Nevertheless，the act of necessity shifts one’s own danger to an innocent person. Therefore， the act of necessity is in essence a right-violating act. Why could the act of necessity be legally justified? This article will approach this question from different perspectives， such as Kant’s concept of right， utilitarianism， Hegel’s right of necessity， etatistic position， and concept of solidarity. On the basis of different philosophic positions to necessity，this article tries to provide a clear declaration about the legitimate grounds of justifying necessity in criminal law.