罗尔斯与功利主义

罗尔斯的正义理论和功利主义都把对方看做最主要的理论对手.这篇文章站在功利主义立场上对罗尔斯提出了批评:一方面,罗尔斯对功利主义所做的大量批评完全被误解了,也就是说,罗尔斯不仅没有驳倒功利主义,而且他对两个正义原则与功利主义的比较也是无法成立的;另一方面,因为两个正义原则与功利原则处在不同的层面上,这样从功利主义出发,不仅能够论证功利主义可以作为罗尔斯两个正义原则的基础,而且事实上罗尔斯也依赖功利主义者所使用的论证.     

动机功利主义

行为功利主义用功利的标准来检验行为,而只有导致功利最大化的行为才是道德上正确的.动机功利主义无论在理论还是实践上都与行为功利主义截然不同.在理论上,动机功利主义反对直接用功利标准检验行为,主张用它来检验动机,而更好的动机模式则拥有更大的功利;在实践上,动机功利主义关心的问题不是"我应该(试图)做什么",而是"我是否已经生活得很好",而后者与人们的动机密切相关.     

Utilitarianism and the Ethics of Professional Psychologists

Evidence exists that behavioral and social science researchers have been frustrated with regulations and institutional review boards (IRBs) from the 1970s through today. Making matters worse, many human participants protection instruction programs—now mandated by IRBs—offer inadequate reasons why researchers should comply with regulations and IRBs. Promoting compliance either for its own sake or to avoid penalties is contrary to the developmental aims of moral education and may be ineffective in fostering the responsible conduct of research. This article explores the concept of professional virtue and argues that compliance is capable of becoming a professional virtue like scientific honesty. This requires, however, that regulatory and IRB demands contribute to human well-being and to the aims of research as a profession and that researchers, therefore, internalize the norms that underlie regulatory and IRB demands. This, in turn, requires a series of changes in the way society develops, promulgates, and enforces regulatory and IRB rules. The challenge is, simply put, to embed compliance into the world of living morality.     

Utilitarianism and the Evolution of Ecological Ethics

R.M. Hare’s two-level utilitarianism provides a useful framework for understanding the evolution of codes of professional ethics. From a Harean perspective, the codes reflect both the fact that members of various professions face special kinds of ethically charged situations in the normal course of their work, and the need for people in special roles to acquire various habits of thought and action. This highlights the role of virtue in professional ethics and provides guidance to professional societies when considering modifications to their codes. From a Harean perspective, a professional society should ask both “Are there kinds of situations that members of this profession will normally encounter which members of other professions and/or the general public will not?” and “What habits of thought and action would it be good for individuals encountering such situations to have?”