生命权冲突下的紧急避险存在许多特殊问题，对紧急避险正当化根据的梳理是研究该类特殊问题的前提。本文认为紧急避险的正当化根据应采取原则上阻却违法的二分说，并采取法益衡量说。本文对生命法益的可衡量性采取折中说（肯定说），但应当坚持生命权冲突的讨论前提是区分生命法益的“质”与生命法益的“量”，生命的“质”不可衡量，但生命的数量可以比较。本文立场与绝对否定说预设的“人即目的本身”与“生命是最高价值”价值前提也并不矛盾。保护多数人的生命权是紧急避险的法益保护目的，此时被牺牲者并没有被当作生存的手段，牺牲只是避险行为产生的不利后果，因而可以确证生命法益“量”的可衡量性。近年来，围绕民法典人格权编中生命权的规定，各部门法学者对生命权的内容和保护机制展开了激烈争论，刑法对生命权既有保护也有限制，生命权冲突下的紧急避险就是刑法对生命权限制的确证。但基于对生命的尊重和对人格尊严的保护，本文主张生命权冲突下要考虑被避险人的自律性及容忍义务、被牺牲者是否同意以及被牺牲者的特定地位（生存机会）。对生命的避险行为要结合案例根据具体情形判断阻却违法还是阻却责任。以消防员灭火救援为例，职务行为中对生命的避险行为不可一概否定，当特定职业者的生命法益处于被严重威胁的情形时，可以否定特殊职业者属于刑法21条第3款规定的“职务上、业务上负有特定责任的人”，特殊职业者因而不再承担风险义务得以实施紧急避险。5G技术的普及和人工智能的发展会催动自动驾驶汽车时代的到来，就自动驾驶中的避险行为而言，基于经济和社会发展的合理性，可以允许编程者事先对生命权冲突情形进行编程，但编程者对生命法益的保护会有所侧重，本文主张编程者只能设定并遵守优先保护多数人生命权的规则，对于一人生命对一人生命的生命权冲突情形就不能允许编程者对生命法益做出事先的预设和衡量。另外，在原因违法行为导致的生命权冲突下，允许行为人实施紧急避险并无障碍，但行为人也要对原因违法行为造成的生命法益损害结果承担刑事责任。

There are many special problems in emergency avoidance under the conflict of the right to life, and the rationalization of the basis of emergency avoidance is the prerequisite for studying this kind of special problems. The basis for the legitimization of emergency hedging should be based on the principle of preventing illegal dichotomy, and the theory of jurisprudence should be adopted. This article adopts an eclectic approach to the measurability of the legal benefits of life, but we should insist that the premise of the discussion of the right to life conflict is to distinguish the "quality" of the legal benefits of life and the "quantity" of the legal benefits of life. The "quality" of life cannot be measured. But the number of lives can be compared. The position of this article is not contradictory to the presupposition of "man is the purpose itself" and "life is the highest value" presupposed by the absolute negation theory. Protecting the right to life of most people is the purpose of protecting the legal benefits of emergency avoidance. At this time, the victim is not regarded as a means of survival. The sacrifice is only the unfavorable consequence of the avoidance behavior, so it can confirm the measurable "quantity" of the legal benefit of life. Sex. In recent years, around the provisions of the right to life in the Personality Rights of the Civil Code, legal scholars from various departments have launched fierce debates on the content and protection mechanism of the right to life. The criminal law has both protections and restrictions on the right to life, and emergency avoidance under the conflict of the right to life It is the confirmation of the limitation of the criminal law on the right to life. However, based on the respect for life and the protection of human dignity, this article advocates that the self-discipline and tolerance obligations of the avoided person, the consent of the victim, and the specific status (survival opportunity) of the victim should be considered in the conflict of the right to life. The act of avoiding danger to life should be combined with the case to determine whether to block the violation of the law or block the responsibility according to the specific situation. Take firefighters fire fighting and rescue as an example. The act of avoiding danger to life in their job behavior cannot be completely denied. When the life law of a specific professional benefits from a serious threat, it can be denied that the special professional belongs to the provisions of Article 21, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law. "Persons who have specific responsibilities in their positions and businesses", so special professionals no longer bear the obligation of risk to implement emergency hedging. The popularization of 5G technology and the development of artificial intelligence will spur the advent of the era of autonomous driving. As far as risk-averse behavior in autonomous driving is concerned, based on the rationality of economic and social development, programmers can be allowed to preempt the conflict of the right to life. Programming, but programmers will focus on the protection of the legal interests of life. This article advocates that programmers can only set and abide by the rules that give priority to the protection of the right to life of the majority. Programmers cannot be allowed to conflict with the right to life of one person’s life against one’s life. Pre-define and measure the legal benefits of life. In addition, under the conflict of the right to life caused by the illegal act, the perpetrator is allowed to implement emergency avoidance without obstacles, but the perpetrator shall also bear criminal responsibility for the result of the damage to the life and legal interests caused by the illegal act.