评皮亚杰"约束的道德"与"协作的道德"——兼论代际关系视野中的道德教育

让·皮亚杰在<儿童的道德判断>中提出了"约束的道德"和"协作的道德"两个不曾被人专门讨论的核心概念.它们分别具有以下三大特点:约束的道德是成人权威的体现,协作的道德则是儿童自主制订规则的道德;约束的道德倾向于惩罚性的公正;而协作的道德则追求平等的公正;约束的道德是他律的道德,协作的道德则是自律的道德.深入辨析"约束的道德"和"协作的道德",对于创新建立在成年人与未成年人良性互动基础上的道德教育具有明显的意义和价值.     

临床试验中的弱势群体及其伦理保护

临床试验中的弱势群体包括社会性和生理性弱势人群,如儿童、孕妇、精神疾病者、认知障碍者、终末期病人、囚犯、雇员和学生。由于弱势群体可能比普通受试者面临更多的风险或受到更严重的试验伤害,因此需要得到更多的保护,包括选择弱势群体作为受试者应合理且必要,弱势群体的知情同意权应得到充分保障。尊重、有益和公正是保护弱势群体的伦理原则,基于此应做好知情同意和风险获益评估,并正确选择试验对象。保护弱势群体的伦理相关法规需进一步完善,伦理审查标准应统一,同时不能为了避免伦理问题而拒绝接纳弱势群体参与临床试验。     

儿童临床试验伦理要素与受试者保护机制研究

国家卫生健康委员会2016年5月、2017年5月公布71种药物纳入鼓励研发申报儿童药品清单,以儿童为受试者的临床试验迎来巨大的机会,给儿童受试者保护带来巨大的挑战。通过探讨儿童临床试验方案设计、儿童及家庭知情同意、儿童受试者风险-受益评估及伦理委员会审查程序等与儿童临床试验特殊伦理问题相关的伦理审查体系,以期构建以临床试验方案为依据,受试者安全为核心,知情同意为底线,兼顾公平原则,研究者-监护人-伦理委员会-行政管理部门-社会各方协同配合的儿童受试者保护机制。     

青少年性教育的"三理"诠释

人类的性是生理、心理及伦理系统的存在整体."三理"教育的实质是生理、心理及伦理的整合创新模式.从"三理"的视角理解,青少年性教育是依据青少年身心发展规律,帮助青少年打破性无知、和谐性心理、内化性道德、培养性责任.其中以性生理教育为基础,性心理教育为重点,性道德教育为核心,做到"三理结合、三理同步".在家庭、学校及社会的共同努力下,使青少年性教育纳入义务教育之中,帮助青少年健康"性"成长.     

药物临床试验伦理审查的跟踪审查程序研究

为了保护受试者的合法权益,药物临床试验的伦理审查必须规范化进行.通过走访哈尔滨医科大学附属医院伦理委员会了解到,伦理审查程序缺乏相对完整性,特别是跟踪审查程序还在完善过程中,没有形成统一具体的操作规程.对此,结合我国实际情况,借鉴国外先进经验,提出构建药物临床试验跟踪审查程序的建议.     

传统价值取向对心理咨询与治疗中儿童权利的冲击

在儿童心理咨询与治疗中,儿童享有获得治疗权、同意治疗权、拥有隐私权和个人名誉权等权利。在心理咨询与治疗中,对于来访者权利的保护已经得到了公认,但作为特殊的群体,儿童在心理咨询与治疗中的权利常被忽视。就中国文化而言,中国传统的价值取向是造成这一现象的原因之一。研究者认为中国人在日常生活中的适应方式是偏向社会取向的,这种社会取向有4个内涵,分别是家族取向、关系取向、权威取向和他人取向。因此,当以西方理论为主要指导的儿童心理咨询运用到中国社会时,必然会受到中国传统价值取向的影响,这些传统价值取向通过对儿童父母或民众观念的影响,进而冲击心理咨询与治疗中儿童权利的保护。     

走向形式公正与实质公正的统一——西方公正观演进的现实启示

构建与我国社会发展进程相一致的公平正义观,是我国现阶段面临的重要课题.社会主义公平正义观是马克思主义经典作家在资本主义形式公正的基础上提出来的,旨在实现形式公正与实质公正的统一.在西方,公平正义观经历了一个由形式公正走向实质公正进而追求形式公正与实质公正相统一的过程.借鉴西方公正观演进的逻辑,把握公平正义发展的规律,构建市场与政府良性互动的公平正义实现机制,逐步实现形式公正与实质公正的统一,对于构建和实现社会主义公平正义观至关重要.     

"经济人"与制度安排

"经济人"利己性并非理论假定,而是一个简单的事实;"经济人"利益最大化不是追求物质、金钱的最大化,是包括名誉、地位、良心以及长远利益的最大化;"经济人"涵盖十分广泛,不局限于经济领域,还涉及政府官员在内的所有劳动者;"经济人"出现利他行为时也不能排除其出于利已的动机;"经济人"的利己属性是人的基本权利,无善恶之分.对"经济人"必须设计和构建严格的制度,使正当的个人利益得到激励和保护,损害他人利益的行为得到抑制和禁止.制度安排必须遵循权利与义务对等原则,平等性、自主性、互利性原则,强化对权力约束原则,实现个人利益、他人利益、社会利益趋于一致.     

医患关系失和与患者道德权利的保护

在分析导致医患关系失和原因的基础上,界定"患者道德权利"内涵,揭示患者道德权利被忽视和遭受侵害是导致医患关系紧张的常见原因,结合患者道德权利的特点,提出强化患者权利保护的措施,即转化患者道德权利为制度性权利,提升权利的权威与效力;提高医务人员人文素质及执业能力;创新患者道德权利保护机制。     

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。     

"Psychotherapy" versus "treatment"

Presents a comment on "Psychological treatments" by D. H. Barlow. Barlow proposed that we distinguish between the terms "treatment" and "psychotherapy." The author believes that not only is the distinction unnecessary, but that its implications could have negative consequences for the field of clinical psychology. It is the proposed distinguishing feature that treatments are "specifically tailored to the pathological process that is causing the impairment and distress" that is most problematic. Clinical psychology does not need a distinction that further exacerbates the split between researchers and practitioners.     

"Enmeshment" and "Fusion"

The paper examines two related concepts utilized by two different schools of family therapy. Any family seen to be "enmeshed" is also seen as "fused," and vice versa. The difference in the level of focus, on the "system containing the individuals" (structural) or the "individual in the system" (fusion), determines the difference in therapeutic approach of these two schools.     

"本体论"与"伦理学"--形而上学的两个向度

形而上学有两个密切相关的内在向度,就是本体论向度与伦理学向度.在哲学史上,哲学家们之所以在"追求形而上学"的同时,又总是"反形而上学",并非是人们的形上本性出了问题,而是因为人们总是将形而上学视为单纯的"一维性",总是用一个向度来取代或遮蔽另一个向度.而所谓的"后形而上学思想",也并不是消解了形而上学,而是指形而上学从"本体论向度"转向了"伦理学向度".     

“对的”与“好的”

什么是“对的”,和对它的证立,是道德哲学中具有争议性的核心问题,也是效用主义和道义论间的主要差异之所在。统合效用主义对于“好的就是对的”这个陈述有一套完整周延的说法。而道义论对这个问题的证立不够周延或没有足够的说服力。     

从"管制"到"平衡"--政府与公众理想关系模式的构建及其制度化

论文从行政民主的角度探讨政府与公众之间的理想关系模式及其制度化构建过程 ,将我国在改革之前的政府与公众模式概括为管制模式。论文指出 ,在制度变迁的过程中 ,这一模式日益受到挑战。而在新的制度环境下 ,我国政府与公众的关系模式应该是平衡模式。这一模式的制度化措施包括培育自主的市民社会 ,赋予公众以独立的活动空间 ;促进行政公开 ,建立一个开放负责的政府 ;推进行政法建设 ,抑制行政恣意     

PREFERRING "HOUSEWIVES" TO "FEMINISTS"

Four studies are described outlining the favorability of attitudes toward women. In Study 1, participants indicated their attitudes toward women and men and their construal of the term "women". The results revealed that women were evaluated more favorably than men, but that male right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) who construed women as referring primarily to feminists were least favorable in their attitudes. In Study 2, participants indicated their attitudes toward both "housewives" and "feminists". The results revealed that feminists were evaluated less favorably than housewives, and that the most negative attitudes toward feminists were expressed by authoritarian men. Study 3 revealed that high-RWA males held more negative symbolic beliefs concerning feminists (i.e., beliefs that feminists failed to promote participants'values) and that these beliefs accounted for variation in attitudes among high RWAs and much of the RWA-attitude relation. Finally, Study 4 revealed that high RWAs perceived greater value dissimilarity between them-selves and feminists. The implications of the findings for future research are discussed.     

"石狮"、"风水"与"吉祥"

谁都知道,在古老的中国,不管是衙门、宫殿、庙宇的门前,还是豪宅、大户人家的门口,人们都能看到摆着一对石狮。据说,这对石狮子在许多中国人的心目中,它不但是一种气派的象征,而且还是一种被人认为是好的“吉祥物”。如今,旧时的衙门没有了,但遗留下来的宫殿、庙宇的门前,其中有些石狮仍有保存。然而,想像不到的是,这号称“吉祥物”的石狮今天却开始“走”进某些党政机关的大门口,它们(石狮)在那里时时都在保护着这些政府要员“平平安安”、“吉祥如意”。这不仅使我联想起一些极端的报道,有些政府官员为升迁,请算命先生定位,用风水术为政府…     

"Us" and "Them":

Abstract: In the Aristotelian tradition, politics is a matter of public deliberation over questions of justice and injustice. The Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has been uniformly hostile to this notion, and it has instead promoted a jingoistic politics of self‐assertion by an America largely identified with the executive branch of its government. This is doubly disturbing, as the executive branch has sought to free itself from international law, multinational commitments, and domestic judicial regulation, even as it has sought to validate itself by demonizing its enemies. This essay draws out the disturbing echoes here of Carl Schmitt's work of the 1920s, in particular of Schmitt's conception of the sovereign as the ungrounded ground of the law and the political as the site of mortal conflict between friend and enemy. The essay argues that Schmitt's position in the twenties, for all of its evident problems, is superior to that of Bush, Wolfowitz, and Ashcroft in at least two senses: Schmitt condemns the idea of waging war for profit and recognizes that such wars will often be disguised as moral crusades waged against the “inhuman”; and he acknowledges that claiming to fight a war for humanity denies one's enemies their humanity, leaving them open to torture and even extermination.