公正视角下的权利和义务关系

公正与权利和义务密切相关.公正所涉及的权利和义务,应是严格意义上的相互对应、必然相关的权利和义务,也就是说公正的根本问题是权利与"完全义务"(即狭义的义务)如何分配的问题,即不论是基本权利与基本义务,还是非基本权利与非基本义务,也不论是法定权利与法定义务,还是道德权利与道德义务,一方的权利,必然是他方的义务;反之亦然.     

权利优先、还是义务优先——对涉及人的生物医学研究中受试者权利与义务关系的理性思考

对“权利与义务”从“公正”方面进行了解读,论述了在涉及人的生物医学研究中,受试者权利与义务之间的复杂关系,提出“受试者权利优先”是平衡两者关系的基本原则;确立了“受试者权利优先”的具体策略：首先尊重受试者的权利（首要性）;当受试者的权利与受试者的义务出现一定矛盾时,应该把尊重受试者的权利放在首位（至上性）;在尊重受试者的权利中,化解两者矛盾。     

超越义务:儒家责任伦理辨析

受到西方法制文化的影响,人们习惯于讲道德义务,并将儒家伦理称为义务伦理。义务要么是由社会地位所决定的职责,要么源自于为了权利而签订的契约,二者都决定了义务带有一种被动的承受性。儒家伦理反对一味讲利益,因而不太关心权利,也就不可能重视由权利所派生的义务。虽然儒家讲角色功能,讲职责,但儒家更加重视内在的道德感受,重视内在的自觉自愿,因而没有固步自封于角色义务。与义务论相比,儒家伦理更加强调突破自我的权利限制,走出自我,迈向他人,从而积极主动地为他人承担责任。因而,儒家伦理不是义务伦理,而是责任伦理。     

道德绑架为何难以避免

道德绑架现象频繁出现.现有的报道与研究大多对施事方持批评态度,这既不合乎事实也不符合直觉,更回避了道德绑架现象的实质.种种道德绑架得以进行,均需要预设以下核心论证:从道德上的好推出道德上应该做;从道德上应该做推出不做就应该被谴责;从应该被谴责推出对谴责加以表达的恰当性.替受事方辩解的阐述大多反对核心论证中的第二个命题,希望以此阻断核心论证,中止道德绑架.常见的阻断方式有三种:区分完全义务与不完全义务、主张义务的整体性以及诉诸免责条件.但是,这些方式无法彻底阻断核心论证.道德绑架的实质在于施事方所提要求的道德性与受事方眼中的不合意性之间的冲突得不到调解.由于资源、人的能力与认知的有限性,道德绑架现象将会长期存在.     

非权义务与道德绑架

近年来,道德绑架问题引起了社会和学界的关注。道德绑架最普遍和最典型的形式是胁迫行善。道德上完全义务与不完全义务或者说非权义务的区分有助于我们辨析道德绑架问题。道德绑架的实质是把道德上的非权义务等同于完全义务。道德绑架严重侵犯了个人的权利,有损社会的法治秩序,也会伤及道德自身。依法保护人的各种法律权利,增强人的权利意识是防范和消除道德绑架的重要途径。     

论道德权利

在道德生活中,人们之间的关系应当是一种相互的权利与义务关系。道德义务的实质,即是社会和他人对个体的行为要求。但是,由于人们之间的利益关系不可能只是单向的义务关系,因此,有社会和他人对个人的行为要求,也必然有个人对社会和他人的行为要求,这种行为要求,属于道德范围的,便是道德权利。道德权利的客观基础便是社会和他人对个人利益应负的责任。     

从义务概念的两个层次看康德的“说谎难题”

康德在《论出自人类之爱而说谎的所谓法权》一文中提出的“对凶犯不可说谎”的主张，在国内外学术界一直都是一个被广泛讨论的哲学“难题”。对于这一问题，可以从义务概念的层次性寻求解决的出路。康德对义务首先作了法权义务与德性义务的区分，其中法权义务又被区分为“基于契约的义务”和“作为这些义务之基础的义务”两个层次。“真诚”或“不可说谎”属于后一个层次的义务，它事关公民社会的根基，因而是任何个人都“没有权利”违背的，即便个体为此付出生命的代价也必须在所不惜。德性义务中的说谎虽然也是对人格中的人性尊严的伤害，但它只涉及我们自己作为“纯然道德存在者”时的义务，而不涉及公民社会的根基问题。从德性义务的角度来看，说谎虽然“不应当”,但毕竟“可以”现实地存在，尽管说谎者为此必然要受到别人或自己的蔑视。然而，说谎在法权上是绝对不被许可的，因为作为公民，任何个体都没有这个权利，即便在面对凶犯时我们也只能说真话。不过，对凶犯说真话并不意味着我们无视朋友的生命，因为既然相对于公民社会而言，个体的生命是无足轻重的，那么我们用自己的生命来保护朋友，也是我们出于法权义务而应当采取的必然行动。     

道德权利和道德义务的相关性问题

权利和义务往往被视为一对形影相随的范畴。然而 ,权利和义务的相关性并不像通常看上去那样容易把握 ,在涉及道德权利与道德义务的关系时更是如此。对权利和义务的相关性 ,罗斯所概括的四个独立的陈述应该说比较全面。它们包括 :1A对 B有权利意味着 B对 A有义务 ;2 B对 A有义务     

论人对自然的权利和义务

人对自然的权利和义务是相辅相成、紧密联系的。人类在享有对自然的权利的同时,应该也必须履行对自然的相应义务。人对自然的权利和义务主要包括三方面的内容:其一,人类享有在适宜的自然环境中生存的权利,同时负有保护和改善自然环境的义务;其二,人类享有在适宜的自然环境中发展的权利,同时负有可持续发展的义务;其三,人类享有利用自然资源的权利,同时负有保障自然资源合理开发利用的义务。人对自然的权利和义务问题的实质是利益问题。     

论正义与慈善

人们普遍持有正义与慈善的四种区分:一是正义的义务是消极义务,而慈善的义务是积极义务;二是正义的义务是可以强制的,而慈善的义务是不可以强制的;三是正义的义务是完善的义务,而慈善的义务是不完善的义务;四是正义是一个权利问题,而慈善则不是.这四种区分实质上似是而非.要想完整地把握正义与慈善,我们就必须对道德生活有一种整体的设想.     

Common future and personal responsibilities: A comparison between Italian and Burundian students

The political, social, and cultural history of a nation modulates the representations of rights and duties. The aim of this research is to compare students from two countries (Italy and Burundi) in terms of how they define their rights and duties. In the two countries, there are differences both in the legal protection of fundamental rights and in regard to material conditions, which in turn ensure the effectiveness of rights. Focus groups structured around nine questions were conducted in Burundi and in Italy. The discussions with Italian and Burundian students showed some clear differences. Although both groups speak of rights as something to be safeguarded and something that everyone is born with, Italian students do not recognize the complementarity of rights and duties and consider the latter simply as a limit and an obstacle to individual enhancement. On the contrary, Burundian adolescents seem more aware of their personal responsibilities and their role in protecting human rights.     

Moral Outrage: Territoriality in Human Guise

Moral outrage is a response to the behavior of others, never one's own. It is a response to infringements or transgressions on what people perceive to be the immunities they, or others with whom they identify, can expect on the basis of their rights and privileges and what they understand to be their reasonable expectations regarding the behavior of others. A person's culturally defined social identities and the rights and privileges that go with them in relationships to which those identities can be party make up the contents of that person's social persona and also constitute that person's social territory. Infringements of rights and privileges in the social and symbolic worlds in which humans live are the equivalent of encroachments on territory among animals, and moral outrage can be understood as the human expression of what we perceive as territorial behavior in animals. As emotion, outrage is affected by such clinical processes as displacement, rationalization, projection, and reaction formation. Outrage has an essential role in the maintenance of viable social groups, but it also exacerbates conflict among people who perceive one another as "others."     

Reasonable Partiality Towards Compatriots

Ethical theories normally make room both for global duties to human beings everywhere and special duties to those we are attached to in some way. Such a split-level view requires us to specify the kind of attachment that can ground special duties, and to explain the comparative force of the two kinds of duties in cases of conflict. Special duties are generated within groups that are intrinsically valuable and not inherently unjust, where the duties can be shown to be integral to relationships within the group. Since nations can be shown to meet these conditions, acknowledging special obligations towards compatriots is justified. However for such partiality to be reasonable, it must be balanced against recognition of duties of global justice. These duties include duties to respect human rights and duties of fairness towards non-nationals. Weighing such duties against domestic duties of social justice is not a simple task, and the outcome should depend on the precise specification of the duty at stake. In particular, the duty to respect human rights fragments into four sub-duties whose force when set against local duties is markedly different.     

Embracing human fallibilty: On forgiving oneself and forgiving others

Forgiving another and forgiving oneself are both experiences that bring relief and a sense of a new beginning in life. The relationship between these two phenomena is explored through a phenomenological and hermeneutical interpretation of one person's story of reconciliation. It is argued that guilt and shame give rise to the search for forgiveness, and that in either type of forgiveness one moves into a deeper and more profound connection with one's own life as well as the lives of others.     

World Poverty as a Problem of Justice? A Critical Comparison of Three Approaches

With regard to the problem of world poverty, libertarian theories of corrective justice emphasize negative duties and the idea of responsibility whereas utilitarian theories of help concentrate on positive duties based on the capacity of the helper. Thomas Pogge has developed a revised model of compensation that entails positive obligations that are generated by negative duties. He intends to show that the affluent are violating their negative duties to ensure that their conduct will not harm others: They are contributing to and profiting from an unjust global order. But the claim that negative duty generated positive obligations are more acceptable than positive duties is contestable. I examine whether Henry Shue’s model that is integrating negative duties and positive duties is more convincing concerning the foundation of positive duties to protect others. I defend the idea that there are positive duties of justice. This approach can integrate an allocation of positive duties via responsibility and maintain the advantage of an independent foundation of positive duties.

Own-other differences in the realism of some metacognitive judgments

The present study investigated differences in judgments of one's own and others' knowledge (the own-other difference). Consistent with the below-average effect (e.g., Kruger, 1999), our main results showed that the participants gave lower knowledge ratings of their own extent of knowledge than of another person's extent of knowledge (Experiment 1). Furthermore, lower and more realistic judgments were found when the participants judged their own as compared with when judging another person's overall accuracy (frequency judgments) of answering knowledge questions correctly (Experiment 1 and 2). On the basis of these results it is argued that judgmental anchoring may be important also in the context of indirect comparisons, and that previous conclusions of cross-cultural psychology regarding the above-average effect may be oversimplified.     

手术协议中的医生义务

手术协议是外科最常见和病历资料中必不可少的医疗文书之一,是手术前医患双方充分交流、沟通的平台,也是患者行使知情同意权和医生履行法律义务的载体。手术协议中体现了四种医生义务：谨慎注意、积极预见、充分告知和取得同意。     

Generalizing Kant's Distinction between Perfect and Imperfect Duties to Trust in Different Situations

Based on previous research that violations of perfect duties cause stronger correspondent inferences than violations of imperfect ones, the authors performed four experiments to generalize this effect to trust. In Experiment 1, abstract violations of perfect duties resulted in less trust than violations of imperfect ones for specific trust scenarios. In Experiments 2 and 3, the authors experimented with different levels of abstractness of the duty violations and obtained similar effects. Experiment 4 was concerned with generalizing further—from duty violations in one situation to trust in a different situation. Although mostly consistent with the findings from Experiments 1–3, the data also demonstrated partial generalization for violations of both perfect and imperfect duties.     

Hobbes's Theory of Rights – A Modern Interest Theory

The received view in Thomas Hobbes scholarship is that theindividual rights described by Hobbes in his political writings andspecifically in Leviathan are simple freedoms or libertyrights, that is, rights that are not correlated with duties orobligations on the part of others. In other words, it is usually arguedthat there are no claim rights for individuals in Hobbes's politicaltheory. This paper argues, against that view, that Hobbes does describeclaim rights, that they come into being when individuals conform to thesecond law of nature and that they are genuine moral claim rights, thatis, rights that are the ground of the obligations of others to forebearfrom interfering with their exercise. This argument is defended againstboth Jean Hampton's and Howard Warrender's interpretations of rights inHobbes's theory. The paper concludes that the theory of rightsunderlying Hobbes's writing is not taken from Natural Law but isprobably closer to a modern interest theory of rights.     

Good cope, bad cope: adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies following a critical negative work event

The authors examined the moderating effects of coping tactics on the relationship between negative emotion and work performance. Findings indicate an adverse effect of emotion on performance; however, this effect is moderated by coping tactics. Venting (expressing one's negative feelings to others) amplified the adverse effects of negative emotion. Self-control had mixed effects: On one hand, it buffered the adverse effects of negative emotion, yet on the other hand, it had a negative direct effect on outcomes. Task focus had a positive direct effect on performance but no buffering (moderating) effect. Implications of these findings for understanding the effects of negative emotion and coping in the workplace are discussed.