Abstract: Substantial justice requires the legitimacy of the judgment, and the academic circle hopes to complete the legitimacy argument through the interest measurement. Traditional interest measurement tends to construct formal reasoning methods in the field of value judgments, which are accompanied by inconsistent contradictions, including the dilemma of interest stratification, the dilemma of interest ranking, and the dilemma of value standard influence. The improvement of interest measurement requires the reshaping of specific methods: the use of ethical methods to construct acceptability standards， the use of discussion theory and argumentation rules to construct procedural rules， the use of informal argumentation as a logical guarantee to verify conclusions. The improved interest measurement can guarantee the legitimacy of the conclusion from two aspects: reasoning and argumentation.

Key words: interest measurement, ethical method, procedural rules, informal argumentation

摘要： 实质正义要求判决具有正当性，学界希望通过利益衡量来完成正当性论证。传统利益衡量倾向于在价值判断领域构建形式推理方法而附带无法自洽的矛盾，包括利益分层困境、利益排序困境、价值标准影响困境。完善利益衡量需要重塑具体方法：运用伦理学方法构建可接受性标准，采取商谈理论和论辩规则构建程序性规则，采取非形式论证作为逻辑保障来验证结论。完善后的利益衡量能够从推理和论证两个方面保障结论的正当性。

关键词: 利益衡量, 伦理学方法, 程序性规则, 非形式论证