After a survey of the proportionality principle and its discontents (irrationality, conceptual flaws, and bias), this article addresses the dual remedy proposed by proportionality critics, which consists in: (i) skipping the first to third prongs of the proportionality analysis (legitimate objective, suitability, and necessity) and (2) concentrating on balancing in the metric form of a cost-benefit analysis. I argue that discarding the three prongs, and thus abandoning the asymmetrical structure of the sequential proportionality analysis, would kill off the specific quality and function of rights which is to constitute a special protection that triggers the obligation to explain and justify interference. Although recent empirical studies have demonstrated that the proportionality test indeed does not deliver predictable legal outcomes, a simple cost-benefit analysis is worse. It would not secure more reliable outcomes either but only offers a sham-rationality. Assigning numbers to the goods and interests at stake cannot replace the work of a multidimensional assessment and argumentative explanation in natural language which is needed for making not only a sound, but also a transparent and thus contestable, decision. What legal life needs is a culture of justification, not a culture of calculation.

中文翻译：

---

要求相称性：对张允建和戴鑫的回复

在对比例原则及其不满（非理性、概念缺陷和偏见）进行调查后，本文讨论了比例批评者提出的双重补救措施，其中包括：（i）跳过比例分析的第一到第三个分支（合法目标、适用性和必要性）和 (2) 专注于以成本效益分析的度量形式进行平衡。我认为，抛弃这三个方面，从而抛弃顺序比例分析的不对称结构，将扼杀权利的特定性质和功能，即构成一种特殊保护，触发解释和证明干预的义务。尽管最近的实证研究表明，比例测试确实不能产生可预测的法律结果，简单的成本效益分析更糟糕。它也不会获得更可靠的结果，而只会提供一种虚假的理性。为利益相关的商品和利益分配数字并不能取代用自然语言进行多维评估和论证性解释的工作，这不仅需要做出合理的决定，而且还需要做出透明的、因此有争议的决定。法律生活需要的是一种辩解的文化，而不是一种计算的文化。