全球生命伦理学:共识的瓦解(下)——对全球性道德的探求:生命伦理学,文化战争和道德多样性

4 认真看待多元化：道德分歧和道德不同意见之间的轴线 道德和生命伦理学都是多元化的。任何关于生命伦理学的沉思,任何思考建立全球生命伦理学是否可能,都必须将道德多元化作为根基,如同多样性就是有很多意见,这是非常值得关注的。各种争论都可以看成是五种平行存在的轴线或者从五种不同的尺度考虑问题。     

当代道德教育指向:从道德顺从到道德选择的理路

我国的道德教育有着悠久的历史,其主体流质是道德顺从教育,原因有:伦理本位的思想传统;群体本位的教育倾向和道德教育的政治统治功能强化。当代道德教育的时代背景的变迁即社会结构的转型和多元化社会的形成以及当代道德教育人本倾向和生活世界的实践回归,标示着道德选择教育成为了道德教育的内在要求和指向。     

道德冲突世界中的生命伦理学:基本争论及干细胞辩论的要点

世界上存在着道德多元性,它表现为生命伦理学的实际道德分布的特征,它是使用人类胚胎作为干细胞来源的争论的根本原因。在世俗文化中,干细胞的使用甚至也会出现疑问。只以从传统的基督教道德直觉和期望的残留影响角度去理解这种现象。关于干细胞的争论反映了更深层次的文化错位。我们正生活在文化战争频发的年代。有必要对罗尔斯学派的关于公共讨论及理性的道德多元化给予重新的关注和评价。     

话语伦理学的道德视角重建

哈贝马斯的话语伦理学试图在传统的宗教基础失效之后,重建道德,为道德规范提供新的基础。通过对道德意识的思考,哈贝马斯论证了道德共同体所有成员共有的内在超越视角,提出了话语伦理学的基本原则。虽然话语伦理学仍有自己的理论局限,但它的道德视角重建却为在当代多元化社会中达成规范共识指出了一条途径。     

回到“道德生活”:当代伦理学研究的主题变奏

当代伦理学研究呈现越来越明显的经验趋向,这一趋向的实质可以概括为回到"道德生活",以日常生活中的道德实践为理论建构的基石。它肇始于美德伦理学对传统规范伦理学的批判,兴盛于后现代伦理学,并在当代多元社会现实中继续深化,逐渐形成崭新的研究范式。回到"道德生活"将给以儒家伦理为核心的中国伦理学提供参与当代伦理学理论形态建构的主体机遇,推动西方伦理学理论的本土化与中国伦理学理论的全球化。同时也需要对这一趋向进行反思,避免研究的碎片化,将研究提升到本体论层面上继续探讨。     

论中国传统道德的当代价值

中国传统道德具有与社会政治紧密结合 ,坚持群体为本位 ,突出主体地位等特征。“公”、“忠”、“义”、“仁爱”、“中和”、“孝慈”、“廉洁”、“勤俭”等德目与当代社会主义道德之间有着许多相通之处。对这些反映社会运行一般规律 ,具有一般理论意义和超时代价值的内容应当进行发掘、梳理 ,以充实和丰富当代社会主义思想道德体系。     

道德、宗教和文化的完整性:对跨文化伦理学及公共政策论的意义

分析传统对宗教与道德之间关系的两种模式（A）与（B）都是过分偏激容易引起误解。它们所代表的观点亦不容易在实践中可以持续。（A）模式坚持道德必须直接地依赖宗教作为它的惟一来源。（B）模式则认为道德应完全独立于宗教。然而,欧洲启蒙运动所追求的一种具普遍性和独立于宗教的理性伦却明显已经“破产”。因为并没有任何一个群体能够完全摆脱它自身拥有的历史、文化与宗教遗产。提出一个辩证法的模式,即认为宗教与文化应有一个相互依赖、相互诠释的关系,一个群体／社会的文化完整性才得以保存。这模式对跨文化伦理对话以及公共政策的讨论都具有相当的意义。     

近代道德重建的可贵探索——孙中山论道德的革命与革命者的道德

道德重建是从传统走向近代的一个重要任务。辛亥革命后,孙中山对革命的得失进行了持续的反思,愈益清醒地认识到道德重建对于革命的重要价值。围绕着国民道德的革命与革命者的道德这两个方面,孙中山阐发了诸如人格救国、替众人服务、为主义奋斗以及为主义牺牲等道德主张。这些道德思想为当时的民族民主革命提供了重要的精神动力与价值引导,其合理的内容在今天仍然闪烁着历史的光辉。然而,囿于历史的与阶级的局限,孙中山的诸多道德主张虽然在很大程度上触及到了当时中国社会的文化精神问题,但并未能对道德的本质与道德发展的规律进行科学的认识与探究,故未能提出解决这些问题的有效现实途径。     

诺斯替主义对后现代生命伦理学兴起的启示

后现代生命伦理学兴起,有着深刻的多方面的理论根源.其中,诺斯替主义对其形成与发展有着不可忽略的作用.具体体现在:探索路径的独特性;立足后现代道德多元化,反理性、挑战原则主义;承认道德异乡人,构建次级相对主义以及对人内在精神本性的诉求.     

现象学伦理学的基本问题

严格意义上的"现象学的伦理学"是一种反思—描述的伦理学。胡塞尔、哈特曼、耿宁的案例为我们提供了现象学伦理学的三种可能性,它们的共同特点都是在现象学反思中进行的对道德意识的有意无意的本质直观。这样一种现象学的伦理学与其说是一种价值伦理学,不如说是一种道德心理学或道德意识现象学。现象学的反思—描述伦理学与近代以来的规范伦理学的区别,非常类似于数学—逻辑学中的直觉主义与形式主义的差异。与后面两种数学理论一样,前面两种伦理学说也不能被理解为是非此即彼、相互排斥的。只是对它们之间的奠基关系的不同理解,会导向在伦理学思考中的两种不同立场:反思—描述伦理学的和规范伦理学的。这两种伦理学需要彼此互补才能最终构成完整的人类道德系统。     

Bioethics critically reconsidered: Living after foundations

Given intractable moral pluralism, what ought one to make of the bioethics that arose in the early 1970s, grounded as it was in the false assumption that there is a common secular morality that secular bioethics ought to apply? It is as if bioethics developed without recognition of the crisis at the heart of secular morality itself. Secular moral rationality cannot of itself provide the foundations to identify a particular morality and its bioethics as canonical. One is not just confronted with intractable moral and bioethical pluralism, but with the absence of a secular ground that can show why one should act morally rather than self-interestedly. The result is not merely the deflation of much of traditional Western morality to life-style and death-style choices, but the threat of deflating to political slogans the now-dominant secular morality, including its affirmation of human autonomy, equality, social justice, and human dignity. All of this invites one critically to reconsider the meaning and force of secular bioethics.     

The Visual Guide to Morality: Vision as an Integrative Analogy for Moral Experience,Variability and Mechanism

Analogies help organize, communicate and reveal scientific phenomena. Vision may be the best analogy for understanding moral judgment. Although moral psychology has long noted similarities between seeing and judging, we systematically review the “morality is like vision” analogy through three elements: experience, variability and mechanism. Both vision and morality are experienced as automatic, durable and objective. However, despite feelings of objectivity, both vision and morality show substantial variability across biology, culture and situation. The paradox of objective experience and cultural subjectivity is best understood through constructionism, as both vision and morality involve the flexible combination of more basic ingredients. Specifically, both vision and morality involve a mechanism that demonstrates Gestalt, combination and coherence. The “morality is like vision” analogy not only provides intuitive organization and compelling communication for moral psychology but also speaks to debates in the field, such as intuition versus reason, pluralism versus universalism and modularity versus constructionism.     

论道德现象的特点

从道德存在论看 ,道德是普遍性与特殊性的统一 ;地域性与历史性的统一。从道德价值论看 ,道德是相对性与绝对性的统一 ;多元性与一元性的统一。从道德认识论看 ,道德是客观性与主观性的统一 ;群体性与个体性的统一。从道德实现论看 ,道德是他律性与自律性的统一 ;现实性与理想性的统一。     

Moral knowledge: some reflections on moral controversies, incompatible moral epistemologies, and the culture wars.

An authentic Christian bioethical account of abortion must take into consideration the conflicting epistemologies that separate Christian moral theology from secular moral philosophy. Moral epistemologies directed to the issue of abortion that fail to appreciate the orientation of morality to God will also fail adequately to appreciate the moral issues at stake. Christian accounts of the bioethics of abortion that reduce moral-theological considerations to moral-philosophical considerations will not only fail to appreciate fully the offense of abortion, but morally mislead. This article locates the bioethics of abortion within the theology of the Church of the first millennium, emphasizing that abortion was prohibited, whether or not one considered the embryo or fetus to be ensouled.     

道德之一元论与多元论：缘起、内涵与论争

一元论与多元论之争是道德心理学领域近些年最为活跃的理论交锋之一。道德一元论认为所有外在的道德现象与内在的道德结构都可以用一种因素来解释。道德多元论则认为道德不能只用单一因素来解释,而是存在多个不同质的道德维度,且具有文化敏感性。对应道德理论和道德基础理论是这场争议的典型代表。双方就伤害的解释力、道德失声现象、模块化道德与洁净维度独立性等方面展开论争。未来研究应从三个具体方面进一步探索道德之一元论与多元论难题,进而保持道德心理学领域的理论活力。     

Medical Ethics Research Between Theory and Practice

The main object of criticism of present-day medical ethics is the standard view of the relationship between theory and practice. Medical ethics is more than the application of moral theories and principles, and health care is more than the domain of application of moral theories. Moral theories and principles are necessarily abstract, and therefore fail to take account of the sometimes idiosyncratic reality of clinical work and the actual experiences of practitioners. Suggestions to remedy the illnesses of contemporary medical ethics focus on re-establishing the connection between the internal and external morality of medicine. This article discusses the question how to develop a theoretical perspective on medical ethical issues that connects philosophical reflection with the everyday realities of medical practice. Four steps in a comprehensive approach of medical ethics research are distinguished: (1) examine health care contexts in order to obtain a better understanding of the internal morality of these practices; this requires empirical research; (2) analyze and interpret the external morality governing health care practices; sociological study of prevalent values, norms, and attitudes concerning medical-ethical issues is required; (3) creation of new theoretical perspectives on health care practices; Jensen's theory of healthcare practices will be useful here; (4) develop a new conception of bioethics that illuminates and clarifies the complex interaction between the internal and external morality of health care practices. Hermeneutical ethics can be helpful for integrating the experiences disclosed in the empirical ethical studies, as well as utilizing the insights gained from describing the value-contexts of health care practices. For a critical and normative perspective, hermeneutical ethics has to examine and explain the moral experiences uncovered, in order to understand what they tell us.     

论道德相对性及其道德实践意义——兼析道德相对主义

道德相对性表现为道德准则规范具有具体性、差异性和不确定性.道德相对性中渗透了道德绝对性即存在普遍的、共同的、不变的道德价值.道德相对主义的错误在于夸大相对性而否定了绝对性.但道德相对主义基于道德相对性的某些主张有一定的合理性.正确理解道德相对性在道德实践中有重要意义.个体道德自主性的提高,既要把握绝对的道德价值观念,同时需要把握道德的相对性以提高具体情境中道德判断和选择能力.     

Learning for oneself: A Confucian‐inspired case for moral formation in ethics pedagogy

This article explores the disconnection between ethical theory and ethical practice in ethics courses at secular U.S. colleges and universities. In such contexts academic ethics focuses almost exclusively on “ethical reasoning” and leaves the business of practical moral formation of students in the realm of “student life.” I argue this disconnection is inevitable given the dominant understanding that moral formation must be guided by a consistent ethical theory, and must eventuate in certain prosocial behaviors, while norms of pluralism and free inquiry mandate that academic courses not attempt to dictate certain views or behaviors as normative. Drawing on the Confucian model of moral cultivation expressed by the early Chinese figure Mengzi, I argue for a different understanding of moral formation that focuses on open‐endedness, self‐direction, and the acquisition of skills in directing attention and will. This approach avoids the most serious challenges to practical moral formation in secular contexts, and I suggest some broadly applicable principles for implementing these ideas in ethics courses.     

Are there different moral domains? Evidence from Mongolia

In this paper we report a study conducted in Mongolia on the scope of morality, that is, the extent to which people moralize different social domains. Following Turiel's moral‐conventional task, we characterized moral transgressions (in contrast to conventional transgressions) in terms of two dimensions: authority independence and generality of scope. Different moral domains are then defined by grouping such moral transgressions in terms of their content (following Haidt's classification of morally relevant domains). There are four main results of the study. First, since all five Haidtian domains were moralized by the Mongolian participants, the study provides evidence in favour of pluralism about moral domains. However, the study also suggests that the domain of harm can be reduced to the fairness domain. Furthermore, although the strong claim about reduction of all moral domains to the domain of fairness does not seem to hold a significant number of participants did indicate considerations of fairness across domains. Finally, a significant amount of participants moralized conventional transgressions a la Turiel, but it did not reach a statistical significance.