道德原则与道德重构

社会主义市场经济条件下的道德原则应包括三方面内容 :尊重和发展个性的原则 ,公利的原则和和谐的原则。在此基础上 ,建构出具有现代意义的高度发达高度文明的新的经济和价值观念模式 ,正是当代哲学伦理学存在之意义所在     

Moral dialogs

Moral dialogs are social processes through which people form new shared moral understandings. They differ from reasoned deliberations because they are focused on values and not on facts, logic or reason. They differ from irrational passions because value statements require moral justifications. Such dialogs take place not just in families and communities, but often on national levels and sometimes even on transnational ones. They played a core role in major societal changes brought about by social movements, such as those that advanced civil rights, women's rights, and the protection of the environment. Most importantly, when successfully concluded, moral dialogs affect not just attitudes and values, but also voluntary behavior as well as laws. Although dialogs may differ greatly in their normative content, they have the same basic sociological format and follow the same basic ‘natural history.’ The article introduces the author's conception of what constitutes moral dialogs by drawing on available evidence, and provides a framework for additional research on the subject at hand.     

道德个体的孤独与道德权威的尴尬

面对当前的社会道德生活,无论是鼓噪道德正在复苏,还是惊呼道德已滑入万劫不复的深渊,无不表明我们的社会道德已陷入异常的困境,集中表现为道德个体的孤独与道德权威的尴尬.道德个体的孤独反映的是一种内指型道德困境,而道德权威的尴尬意在表达一种外指型道德环境资源困境.积极向外寻求依托制度伦理的力量以加强外指型道德环境资源的权威性,从而解决内指型道德个体的孤独,最终实现道德个体与社会道德博弈中的互惠共享,增强道德的力量.     

道德信仰：道德建设的本质与方法

信仰是道德的基本特性。把道德提升到信仰高度来建设,使之具有相对独立的信仰价值,有利于扩大群众基础,增进社会的稳定与和谐,有利于巩固我们党的执政地位,并与社会的政治信仰形成遥相呼应的互动格局。道德信仰包含了对道德的信仰与对善的终极追求两方面内容。解决信仰什么和为什么信仰的问题,可使道德成为一种终极的价值追求。道德信仰的养成需要全社会的关注,既需要从道德体系上完善道德信仰理论,又需要政府政策性的公共引导,同时还需要创设仪式化的社会生活氛围使之加以巩固与强化。     

论道德理性

人们为了生存和发展 ,通过实践建构起了各种各样的关系 ,其中最主要的有人与自然的关系、人与人的关系和身心关系 ,当这些关系中的主、客体处于彼此适合的状态且最有利于人的生存、发展和完善时 ,就是所谓的“合理状态” ,理性就是对这种合理状态的观念把握和实现。与三类关系相对应 ,理性分为工具理性、规范理性和人格理性。道德理性包含了规范理性和人格理性 ,决定于工具理性。道德理性的实质内容在规范理性层面表现为权利平等、公平分配和人民主权。在人格理性层面则难有通约的实质标准 ,因为这是一个安身立命、终极关怀的私德领域。通过理性要把握的“合理状态”是一个价值事实 ,所以它不是认知的 ,而是反省的 ,并把通过反思的“价值事实”作为道德推理和证明的逻辑起点     

论道德回报

道德回报是道德的内在本质要求，是公正作为最基本、最重要的社会美德的充分彰显和具体体现，它使有序的社会伦理生活成为可能，同时也是道德自身“利益”实现的必要条件。道德回报之道德既是现实性道德与理想性道德的统一，也是道德义务与道德权利的统一。道德回报之回报包括“对道德的内在回报”和“对道德主体的外在回报”两个方面。道德回报机制的建立有赖于政府的道德化，并主要通过对行政人员的“赏善罚恶”实现政府对公平正义与和谐稳定的社会秩序的供给。     

怀特海的道德哲学

怀特海哲学既是一种科学哲学、宗教哲学、审美哲学,也是一种道德哲学。怀特海的道德哲学深于对当代文明危机的反思,并力图为道德文明提供一种宇宙论支持。这种支持最核心的意蕴便是把道德直觉和科学直觉、宗教直觉及审美直觉整合为一种统一的、一以贯之的世界观。     

关于德育问题的思考

长期以来,我们的德育一直是低效的,究其原因,主要有两方面,一是德育所提倡的道德远离大众,凌驾于大多数人的利益之上;二是德育远离生活。所以要提高德育的实效,必须从这两方面入手。     

道德现象的复杂性与道德认识的辩证性

道德是人类特有的现象,本身有其复杂性,因而,应采取辩证的方法去认识人类复杂的道德现象,只有坚持用辩证法认识道德现象,才能获得真理性的认识,才能有利于人类的自我发展和自我完善,才能保障社会的有序和健康发展。     

Emotions and Moral Motivation

One question in moral psychology concerns the role of emotions to motivate moral action. This question has recently become more urgent, because it is now clearer that cognitive developmental theories cannot offer a complete explanation of moral functioning. This paper suggests that emotion, as is typically understood in psychology, cannot be seen as the basis for an acceptable explanation of moral behaviour and motivation. However, it is argued that it is possible to understand emotions as embedded in agentic processes, and regulated by conscious concerns. So understood, emotions acquire an important role in the person's moral life. These conclusions are reached through an extensive review of psychological and philosophical conceptions.     

论立法者的伦理素质

对立法者伦理素质的分析是立法主体伦理分析的一个重要组成部分,因为立法者良好的伦理素质能为基于利益博弈和统治合法性而形成的具有正当性的立法决策结果的现实化提供一个重要的保障维度。换言之,具有良好伦理素质的立法者能极大地提高立法权效益。正是基于这一目的的考量,从立法的正当性出发,对立法者伦理素质的考察就相应地具有法的制度道德和立法者职业伦理的双重视角。在此,价值诉求居于支配性地位,它直接凝结成法律这种权威性规范的制度道德内容,成为判别法律是否优劣的直接标准;职业道德素质则直接表征着立法者的整体精神风貌,成为影响立法权效益高低的一个重要指标。     

生育伦理原则刍论

新时期的生育实践给整个社会带来了前所未有的伦理大挑战。生育实践急需科学的生育伦理原则的指导。生育伦理原则是人类在生育领域里不能离开的禁止性规定。实践证明，科学的生育伦理原则主要包括：责任、价值、平等、可持续发展四个方面的内容。     

论德沃金的道德解读——一种宪法解释方法论的进路

德沃金的法学理论,不仅是关于权利道德与原则的学说,而且更重要的是关于宪法的道德解读的实践学说。宪法道德解读方法在宪法理论与实践之间,架起了沟通与对话的天桥。在德沃金看来,“道德解读”就是一种“解读和实施政治性宪法的特定方法”,其特点:一是它所适用的条款都是具有抽象性的道德原则概念,二是适用方法的最终主体是最高法院的法官,三是为长期的宪法传统和司法实践所认同;然而,道德解释并非赋予了法官以绝对自由裁量权,它要受到宪法原则和宪法的整体性双重制约。道德解读是德沃金所倡导的一种不同于其他宪法解释方法的新方法,具有其独特的方法论价值。     

Euthanasia and Moral Stress

No abstract available for this article.     

生物社会学与道德问题

这次有幸到同济大学这样著名的大学来做一次讲演,①我要特别感谢孙周兴教授.据我了解,这个系列讲座主要是邀请一些有成就的学者,来教给一些我们原本不知道的事情.但孙周兴特别留出一次机会,让我来讲一个我刚刚开始摸索的题目.我相信孙教授是有道理的.思考而得结论,固然是最好的事情,但尚未结论的思想、乃至不知道会不会有结论的思想,同样是很重要的,往往还是思考的乐趣的主要来源.我站在这里,虽然没有什么东西好教给你们,但是很希望我所选的题目能引起你们的兴趣,大家一同来思考.     

Moral decisionism and its discontents

Decisionists use decision/choice concepts to understand and represent X: bees, Deep Blue, and Ron Carter make decisions. Explicit decisionists argue that X should be understood and represented using decision/choice concepts: it's correct to speak of bees', computers', and jazz improvisers' decision‐making. Explicit anti‐decisionists disagree: bees, computers, jazz improvisers, algorithms, and drug addicts aren't correctly understood and represented as decision‐makers. Sociologists look at decisionism and explicit decisionism as social phenomena, which show up in discourses, practices, technologies, and organizations. I make a contribution to the sociology of decisionism and the sociology of morality by examining three kinds of explicit moral anti‐decisionism: Murdochian, sociological/structural, and Confucian/Daoist. I show why these discontents are discontent, what theories and evidence they draw on, what assumptions they make, and how they conceive of morality without decision/choice concepts. Then, I consider how moral anti‐decisionism might matter, how the sociology of decisionism might matter, and where to go from here (if anywhere).     

论德育的理性担当

当前我国的德育工作,无论是德育理论水平的提升,还是德育实践的有效进行,都要求我们对德育过程中理性的价值、功能和力量进行深入、全面的探讨。对理性教育在德育过程中何以可能的根据、意义和底蕴进行哲学思考,是理性教育存在的哲理性依据和它的实践的自觉性前提。理性的力量就是理性在追求、实现德育目标过程中所呈现、发挥出来的功能和力量。理性教育是德育的基本原则和方式,德育要在理性与情感的交融中寻求合理张力,反对和防止理性主义和情感主义。     

Moral structures and axiomatic theory

Axiomatic decision theory has proven to be a valuable analytical tool in many disciplines, and in this paper I discuss its application to moral theory. The first part of the paper discusses the general structure of moral theory, and it argues that morality need not be identified with a particular moral principle. The concept of a moral framework is introduced, and a framework for use in analyzing issues of distributive justice is presented in the second section. The application of this framework is discussed in the paper's final section, and two different moral situations are analyzed. The utilitarian principle is argued to be appropriate for the first situation in which a scarce good is to be efficiently distributed, while Rawls' difference principle is claimed to be the correct one for the more abstract issue of basic institutional justice.