公共卫生语境下的政府责任

近年来,公共卫生的要求越来越多地进入到中国百姓的生活之中,问题的焦点也从公共卫生本身逐渐转向政府,转向政府所应当承载的责任乃至信用程度上来.政府在公共卫生问题上责任的缺失固然有责任意识的淡漠原因,但责任本身的模糊与混乱也是不容忽视的.只有保障机制与约束机制,特别是问责制,同时发挥效用,才能保证政府责任的有效实现.     

责任的二重性及责任意识的培养——基于心理学的视野

责任就是做好分内应做之事,既包括职务客观要求的“应做之事”,也包括个体主观认同的“分内之事”,体现出客观与主观二重性。这一特性决定了责任意识包含对应做之事进行客观认识的“责任认知”与对分内之事进行主观认同的“责任情感”二个方面。培养责任认知可以按照传统的教育方法,但责任情感的培养却需另辟蹊径。该文基于心理学的研究成果,从责任分散效应、责任归因理论与角色扮演理论等出发提出了培养责任意识的几条途径。     

THE COLLECTIVIST APPROACH TO COLLECTIVE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

Abstract: In this article we critique the collectivist approach to collective moral responsibility. According to philosophers of a collectivist persuasion, a central notion of collective moral responsibility is moral responsibility assigned to a collective as a single entity. In our critique, we proceed by way of discussing the accounts and arguments of three prominent representatives of the collectivist approach with respect to collective responsibility: Margaret Gilbert, Russell Hardin, and Philip Pettit. Our aims are mainly critical; however, this should not be taken to imply that we do not ourselves support an alternative account of collective responsibility. We advocate an individualist account of collective responsibility. On this view of collective responsibility as joint responsibility, collective responsibility is ascribed to individuals. Each member of the group is individually morally responsible for the outcome of the joint action, but each is individually responsible jointly with the others.     

《周易》责任伦理思想浅析

本文以西方责任伦理理论作为参照,来诠释<周易>所蕴含的责任伦理思想,认为<周易>责任伦理意识的生成体现于责任主体对行为之不良后果的强烈忧患,<周易>对责任主体行为的调适以前瞻得到的后果为价值导向,<周易>通过对行为之不良后果进行积极转化而实现其责任伦理价值.     

Responsibility as Answerability

ABSTRACT

It has recently become fashionable among those who write on questions of moral responsibility to distinguish two different concepts, or senses, of moral responsibility via the labels ‘responsibility as attributability’ and ‘responsibility as accountability’. Gary Watson was perhaps the first to introduce this distinction in his influential 1996 article ‘Two Faces of Responsibility’ (in Agency and Answerability, 260–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), but it has since been taken up by many other philosophers. My aim in this study is to raise some questions and doubts about this distinction and to argue that it has led to confusion rather than clarification in debates over moral responsibility. In place of the attributability/accountability distinction, I propose that there is a single (and unified) concept of moral responsibility underlying our actual moral practices. This core notion of moral responsibility, which I call ‘responsibility as answerability’, is well positioned to explain those aspects of our moral practice that Watson associates with the ‘attributability’ face of moral responsibility as well as those aspects of our moral practice he associates with the ‘accountability’ face. But it does so in a way that does not require us to multiply senses of moral responsibility and that allows us to continue to have meaningful disagreements over the basic conditions of moral responsibility.     

论曾参之孝在强化责任方面的作用

曾参思想以道德规范为主,核心是孝,实质是重视伦理,重视做人的责任。他认为人生责任多,处处时时有责任,责任是相互的;人的责任有先后、高低之分,家庭责任是首要的、基本的,社会行政责任是次要的。人们在尽到家庭责任以后,应自觉主动地承担并终生坚持不懈地履行对他人以至于天下人的责任;人们为尽到人生责任,必须加强自身修养,并提出了“省身”、“战战”、“慎独”等修身方法。     

医生专家责任的法理分析

随着医患关系发展的多样化、复杂化,以及法律对医生专家责任规定的疏漏,医生和患者都面临着巨大的经济和精神压力。因此,明确医生专家责任的法律属性,分析专家责任的构成要件,探讨责任实现形式,建立责任转移方式以及责任限制制度,对于明确医生的权利义务,缓和医患关系,稳定医疗秩序,具有一定的现实意义。     

Role Responsibility

This article is about ‘role responsibility’ as understood by H. L. A. Hart in his taxonomy of responsibility concepts in his book, Punishment and Responsibility. More particularly, it focuses on what I call ‘public, institutional role responsibility’. The main arguments are that (1) such role responsibility is based on authority and power rather than physical and mental capacity; and (2) the foundation of role responsibility in authority has significant implications for what Hart referred to as ‘liability–responsibility’, which I unpack in terms of ‘attribution’, ‘accountability’ and ‘liability’. The article addresses possible objections to the authority-based analysis of role responsibility based on the concept of ‘moral’ responsibility, and on understandings of what types of question are ‘philosophical.’     

Remedial Responsibility for Severe Poverty: Justice or Humanity?

Remedial responsibility is the prospective responsibility to assist those in great need. With tens of millions of people worldwide suffering from severe poverty, questions about the attribution of remedial responsibility and the nature of the relevant duties of assistance are among the most pressing of our time. This article concerns the question of whether remedial responsibility for severe poverty is a matter of justice or of humanity. I discuss three kinds of situation in which an agent owes remedial responsibility to another suffering from severe poverty. In the first, the remedially responsible agent foreseeably and avoidably caused the poverty. In the second, the poverty was caused by forces outside the control of any agent, such as natural disaster. And in the third situation, the agent who was originally attributed remedial responsibility fails to fulfil it, and so remedial responsibility for the poverty in question is acquired by a secondary bearer. According to David Miller, remedial responsibility is a matter of justice in the first two situations, but not in the third. I argue that his grounds for thinking that remedial responsibility in the second situation are in tension with his view that remedial responsibility is not a matter of justice in the third situation. This has important implications in our world in which remedial responsibilities too often go unfulfilled.     

试论甲型H1N1流感防控中个体的道德责任

甲型H1N1的防控不仅是国家、政府、专门机构及专业人员的责任,同时也是每个社会成员应该承担的责任。个体责任缺失是甲型H1N1在我国流行的主要原因之一。导致个体道德责任缺失的原因主要包括：社会中主体的原子化对个体道德责任的排斥、非理性社会心理对个体道德责任的冲击和公共卫生防疫体制中薄弱环节对个体道德责任的影响。基于道德责任产生的基础不同,不同的个体应该承担不同的道德责任。     

青少年责任感缺失的认知维度分析——学校责任感教育合理性追问

目前对青少年社会责任感缺失原因的分析多从社会、家庭、时代等方面着手,对学校范围内进行责任感教育并无多大帮助。本文从认知维度分析了青少年责任感缺失的三种情形及其原因,并以此为基础阐明了学校范围内责任感教育的合理性,提出在学校范围内开展的应是以责任知识、责任思维和责任实践为主要内容的责任感教育。     

Co-responsibility for research integrity

To enlarge the discussion of scientific responsibility for research integrity, this paper offers two historico-philosophical observations. First, in the broad history of ideas, modern ethics replaces social role responsibility with appeals to abstract principles; by contrast, discussions within the scientific community of responsibility for research integrity constitute a rediscovery of the continuing vitality of role responsibility. This is a rediscovery from which philosophy itself may benefit. Second, within the context of scientists' concerns, the idea of role responsibility has undergone significant evolution from "collective responsibility" to the notion of responsibility resting with a "trans-scientific community." Further challenges nevertheless remain in order to relate scientific role responsibility for scientific integrity to the relationship between science and society. To promote a notion of integrity not just in science but in the science-society relationship, it may be useful to think in terms of a "co-responsibility" for scientific integrity.     

Causal and moral responsibility: Antecedents and consequences of group‐based guilt

In six studies (N = 1045) conducted in three European countries, we demonstrate distinctions between causal responsibility, group‐based guilt, and moral responsibility. We propose that causal responsibility is an antecedent of group‐based guilt linking the ingroup to previous transgressions against the victim group. In contrast, moral responsibility is a consequence of group‐based guilt and is conceptualized as a sociomoral norm to respond to the consequences of the ingroup's transgressions and the current needs of the victim group. As such, moral responsibility can be stimulated by group‐based guilt and directly predicts individual action intentions. Studies 1 and 2 focus on the conceptual distinctions among the three constructs. Study 3 tests the indirect effect of causal responsibility on moral responsibility via group‐based guilt. The remaining studies explore the mediating role of moral responsibility in associations between group‐based guilt and compensatory action tendencies, that is, financial compensation (study 4), approach and avoidance tendencies (study 5) and public apology (study 6). Together these studies show that causal and moral responsibility are psychologically distinct concepts from group‐based guilt and that moral responsibility plays an important role in shaping the effects of group‐based guilt on behavioral intentions. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

大学生对网瘾和作弊的责任推断与应对策略

运用情景模拟和角色扮演的方法,研究大学生对网瘾和作弊的责任归因结构及其应对策略。对416名被试的研究结果显示：（1）责任归因的心理结构是一个“责任推断→责任情感→责任行为”的一元结构模式。（2）我国大学生的责任推断过程与维纳的经典理论基本一致,但在行为应对策略上存在一定的文化差异。（3）大学生对网瘾和作弊的责任推断倾向明显并与情感体验基本保持一致,但与行为应对策略存在一定的冲突。（4）大学生在网瘾和作弊的责任推断、情感体验以及应对策略上存在一定差异。     

Moral Responsibility and the Moral Community: Is Moral Responsibility Essentially Interpersonal?

Many philosophers endorse the idea that there can be no moral responsibility without a moral community and thus hold that such responsibility is essentially interpersonal. In this paper, various interpretations of this idea are distinguished, and it is argued that no interpretation of it captures a significant truth. The popular view that moral responsibility consists in answerability is discussed and dismissed. The even more popular view that such responsibility consists in susceptibility to the reactive attitudes is also discussed, and it is argued that this view at best supports only an etiolated interpretation of the idea that moral responsibility is essentially interpersonal.     

How should “acceptance of responsibility” be addressed in sexual offending treatment programs?

Sexual offenders in treatment programs are usually expected to take responsibility for their offending—which we define, on the basis of a literature review, as giving a detailed and precise disclosure of events which avoids external attributions of cause and matches the official/victim's account of the offense. However, research has not established that a failure to take responsibility for offending is a risk factor for future recidivism. In this paper, we critically review and evaluate the literature on taking responsibility for offending, to determine the rationale for the popularity of this treatment target. We consider the reasons why sex offenders fail to take responsibility for their offending and examine some potential problems with focusing on this goal in treatment programs. We also describe alternative treatment strategies for taking responsibility and conclude that there is less need for offenders to take responsibility for their past offending than there is for them to take responsibility for their future actions.     

行为责任归因与批评程度的关系

选取171名进修教师和大学生被试探讨行为责任归因与批评程度之间的内在联系。研究发现;(1)内在的可控的稳定的失败原因引起最高责任推断和最严重批评决定;内在的不可控的不稳定的原因与最低责任和批评程度相联系。(2)控制性维度和责任与批评程度的关系密切。(3)从总体上说责任和批评程度的变化趋势相似。(4)教师特别是女教师对批评方法的使用更为慎重。     

公正世界信念与大学生社会责任感的关系:人际信任的解释作用及其性别差异

社会责任感是大学生学业成就和幸福生活等积极心理与行为的有效预测指标,考察社会责任感的影响因素及其作用机制有助于大学生社会责任感的培养与提升。为此,本研究以6所高校852名大学生为被试,考察了公正世界信念与大学生社会责任感之间的关系,以及人际信任对二者关系的中介作用及其性别差异。结果发现：（1）公正世界信念可以显著正向预测大学生的社会责任感;（2）人际信任在公正世界信念与大学生社会责任感之间发挥着部分中介作用,但是主要表现在男大学生群体中,而女大学生中未发现该效应。这说明,公正世界信念可以显著预测大学生社会责任感,并且在男大学生中人际信任是二者关系的中介桥梁。     

Technology and Parental Responsibility: The Case of the V-Chip

In this paper, the so-called V-chip is analysed from the perspective of responsibility. The V-chip is a technological tool used by parents, on a voluntary basis, to prevent children from watching violent television content. Since 1997 in the United States, the V-chip is installed in all new televisions sets of 12?? and larger. We are interested in the question whether and how the introduction of the V-chip affects who is to be considered responsible for children. In the debate, it has been argued that the V-chip reduces parents?? responsibility for children, but it has also been argued that it gives parents a tool to exercise their responsibility. It may appear as though all debaters are discussing the same thing and merely have different opinions. However, we argue that there are at least three notions of responsibility underlying these claims and that these should be kept separate. First, arguments on responsibility may refer to responsibility as task distribution. Second, they can refer to responsibility as control. Finally, a thicker concept of parental responsibility understood as a virtue may be referred to. It becomes clear that whereas task distribution changes to some extent and the possibilities for control are increased, only certain parts of parental responsibility as a virtue are affected. The finding that there appear to be different notions of responsibility involved in a debate that prima facie is about one issue, indicates that discussions on other technologies and how they affect responsibility may suffer from the same conceptual lack of clarity.     

Risk and Responsibility: A Complex and Evolving Relationship

This paper analyses the nature of the relationship between risk and responsibility. Since neither the concept of risk nor the concept of responsibility has an unequivocal definition, it is obvious that there is no single interpretation of their relationship. After introducing the different meanings of responsibility used in this paper, we analyse four conceptions of risk. This allows us to make their link with responsibility explicit and to determine if a shift in the connection between risk and responsibility can be outlined. (1) In the engineer’s paradigm, the quantitative conception of risk does not include any concept of responsibility. Their relationship is indirect, the locus of responsibility being risk management. (2) In Mary Douglas’ cultural theory, risks are constructed through the responsibilities they engage. (3) Rayner and (4) Wolff go further by integrating forms of responsibility in the definition of risk itself. Analysis of these four frameworks shows that the concepts of risk and responsibility are increasingly intertwined. This tendency is reinforced by increasing public awareness and a call for the integration of a moral dimension in risk management. Therefore, we suggest that a form of virtue-responsibility should also be integrated in the concept of risk.