非法人体试验的实质化犯罪证成与刑法规制

同一社会的法律法规整体中,不同性质的法对行为违法性的评价始终是一致的。《民法典》的问世,将人格权独立成编。人格权的独立成编不仅彰显了国家对公民的生命权、身体权、健康权的法律保护,亦体现了法律对现代医学科学时代人格权新型权利内容的特别维护。刑法应当积极回应非法人体试验这一社会现实,准确把握刑事法律的国际趋势,科学构建刑法体系,完善人体试验法律秩序,保护受试者的合法权益,推动医学研究的良性发展。     

人类基因组计划在西方引发的人性观思考

人类基因组计划在西方世界引起了相当广泛深入的关于人性观的思考。分子生物学的研究成果正在重新塑造人们对人类进化史和人类本身的认识。基因工程、干细胞研究等前沿领域产生的问题促使人们转向西方的传统哲学去寻找思想资源。尽管遗传决定论的陈旧观点在大众文化中仍时有所见。新的基因组学研究已开始采纳一种更全面的、兼顾历史与社会文化因素的角度。     

论"天人合一"

最近看到<科技中国>2004年11月号和12月号刊登了由该刊和清华大学高等研究中心主办的"中国传统文化对中国科技发展的影响"论坛的报导和在讨论会上各位专家的发言,其中有好几位专家都讲到"天人合一"问题.本文打算就这个问题谈一些想法.     

守卫人类的神圣与尊严

主要由基因技术实施导致的人类自然身体的技术化,以及由智能技术完成的人类智力和精神的技术化,正在将人类的身和心推向双重的非自然化,使人类生命的神圣与尊严受到严重的挑战。守卫人类身体的自然本真,守卫人类大脑思维、意识的主体性,守卫人类与生俱来独有的人格特征,守卫人是目的而非工具的底线,是当代医学伦理学和生命伦理学面临的紧迫任务,是保卫人类神圣与尊严的要旨,也是发展生命技术不可逾越的红线。大力发展那些不伤害、不是再造人类生命自然本真的弱高新生命技术,为预防和治疗那些遗传性和复杂性疾病服务,抑制那些旨在再造人类生命的强高新生命技术,是发展生命技术策略的最佳选择。

     

重建人类禁忌观念

禁忌是指被禁止或忌讳的言行,在古代被认为是不可触犯的戒律。禁忌作为人类最古老的观念,从原始社会到传统社会一直是人类生命安全的守护神。然而,近代以来市场经济、工业革命和现代科技汇聚成的巨大力量使过去建立在畏惧敬畏对象和恇畏对象基础上的禁忌消失殆尽,导致了许多前所未有的重大社会问题和灾难性事件。因此,重建近代以来被否弃的禁忌观念必须提上议事日程。今天的禁忌对象也无非就是敬畏对象和恇畏对象这两大类,前者包括自然、神灵和祖先,后者包括战争、恐怖主义、干预人类自然生长和生活的各种科学研究,以及毒品、性乱、谣言、不讲卫生等。重建禁忌观念,就是要努力促使人们将禁忌内化为自己的底线生存观念,从而在内心深处对触犯禁忌感到羞耻和有罪。当前尤其要注重从小培养人们的畏惧和禁忌意识,强化触犯禁忌的耻感和罪感,营造切忌触犯禁忌的舆论氛围,用法律和道德促进禁忌观念形成。     

论人的脆弱性和依赖性

人类所有的脆弱性是人性的一个基本事实。人类的脆弱性与人类的德性需要是内在相关的。但是,在漫长的西方哲学史上,对于人的脆弱性以及人的依赖性这一基本的人性事实却很少有人注意。然而,人类需要承认依赖性的德性。     

Artificial Intelligence and the New Alienation of Human Beings

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a revolutionary and overwhelming technology that is yet to immature. While profoundly changing and shaping people and society, AI also splits into its own opposites and develops into a new external alien force. As the basic technical support of the entire society, intelligent technology entails the overt or covert domination of human beings, who are becoming the “vassals” and “slaves” of this high-speed intelligent social system. Various intelligent systems are constantly replacing human work, so that the “digital poor” gradually lose the opportunities and values offered by labor and hence are excluded by the global economic and social system, rendering their existence empty and absurd. The rapid development of intelligent robots has blurred the boundary between humans and machines and had a strong impact on the nature of man and his position as a conscious agent, making “What is man?” and the human-machine relationship prominent issues for our times, challenging the commonplaces of philosophy. We must face up to the existing or imminent risk of alienation, expand our theoretical horizons, innovate theories of alienation in the era of intelligence, take constructive action in terms of the construction of an ideal society and the evolution of man himself, build an ecological system for the joint evolution and growth of human beings and intelligent machines, and achieve liberty of man and the all-round and free development.     

Protecting Nature for the Sake of Human Beings

It is often assumed that to say that nature should be protected for the sake of human beings just is to say that it should be protected because it is a means to one or more anthropocentric ends. I argue that this assumption is false. In some contexts, claims that a particular natural X should be protected for our sakes mean that X should be protected, not because it is a means to anthropocentric ends, but because it is part of something about human life that is of value: because, that is, its value is anthropocentric and constitutive rather than anthropocentric and instrumental. It follows, I suggest, that one does not need to endorse the non‐anthropocentric claim that nature should be protected for its own sake in order to challenge the instrumentalist notion that it should be protected simply because it is a means to anthropocentric ends (as, say, a provider of ecosystem services). To make my case, I consider the UK Government's failed attempt to sell off England's publicly‐owned forests.     

论人的主体性与主体性教育

由于科学技术革命所引起的社会巨变 ,人的“主体性问题”成了当代理论和实践发展的一个生长点 ,弘扬人的主体性已成为我们这个时代的呼声 ,这就要求担负着“培育人”的重任的教育界把高扬主体性作为当今教育倡导的基础和核心。但是 ,由于传统教育的影响 ,长期以来 ,在我国教育界存在着一种可以称之为“主体性缺位”的现象 ,本文试图通过对这一现象及其成因的剖析 ,把哲学理论所探讨的主体性问题与当今教育理论相结合 ,认为应在当今教育中贯彻“主体性教育”的理念 ,这既是教育理论的发展所趋 ,也是当今社会实践状况的要求。一、主体性理论—…     

Neurolaw: Neuroscience,Ethics, and Law. Review Essay

Neurolaw is a new, rapidly developing area of interdisciplinary research on the meaning and implications of neuroscience for the law and legal practices. In this article three recently published volumes in this field will be reviewed.     

On the Complexity and Wholeness of Human Beings: Husserlian Perspectives

Abstract

At the beginning of Being and Time, Heidegger rejects Husserl’s classical phenomenology on three grounds: he claims that Husserlian phenomenology is impaired by indeterminate concepts, by naïve personalism, and by obscurities in its account of individuation. The paper studies the validity of this early critique by explicating Husserl’s discourse on human persons as bodily-spiritual beings and by clarifying his account of the principles by which such beings can be individuated. The paper offers three types of considerations. After a summary of Heidegger’s early critique of Husserl, the second section of the paper distinguishes between two dimensions of Husserl’s discourse on human persons. It argues that Husserl does not put forward one analysis of the being of humans, but explicates two different accounts and then studies critically their mutual relations of dependency: on the one hand, the naturalistic account of human beings as layered beings and on the other hand the personalistic account of human beings as peculiar kinds of unified wholes in which the mental and the bodily are inextricably intertwined. The third section of the paper clarifies Husserl’s theory of individuation and its consequences for our discourse on human persons. Finally, the fourth section explicates the conceptual means by which Husserl develops his account of human beings as persons. The paper ends in drawing some conclusions for contemporary philosophical anthropology.     

From the Terrible Loneliness to the Wonderful Agreement of Human Beings

What would be the “terrible loneliness” and what would be the “wonderful agreement” in the present paper? The “terrible loneliness” is the only reality that a person perceives and/or thinks during the now going on. For the person, an enormous quantity of occurrences is in the present moment absent. A very small quantity of occurrences is present. The person is the only being in having this. And, this is only during a little moment. The person never thinks about his loneliness in this moment. On the contrary, he thinks he is plenty of people and full of occurrences. But, if he were thinking about reality, he would live in a terrible loneliness. How does he escape himself from this loneliness? He thinks that the probable occurrences are real occurrences. He may be right in a plenty of times. Going through what I call opening hypotheses—basic hypotheses and non-basic but important hypotheses—and going through what I call simply hypotheses he is able to sanction a wonderful agreement of human beings about the known parts of the Universe. However, they are hypotheses, not absolute realities.     

Self‐Creation? On the Dignity of Human Beings

It was not through biotechnological possibilities that human beings first discovered “self‐creation” as a question. Rather, the question fits into the horizon of the primordial human desire to be like God. Against this hamartiological insight, a soteriological expectation related to technology has arisen. The latter expectation must be rejected, but not in all respects. Rather, one has to stress the inventive and constructive aspect of the dignity to rule, which is implied in human linguistic reason (λογοσ). There are, however, boundaries to be perceived and to be set. This becomes evident when embryo‐consuming research is at stake. In this context, the main question is: Wherein lies human “dignity”? This is the same question as: wherein lies the “being‐as‐person”? The author sees the fewest difficulties in attributing personhood to the beginning of life, which occurs with the fusion of ovum and sperm. This attribution is not justified by the material substrate as such. Rather, it is the result of intertwining the element, namely the lump of cells, and the word of institution, which “speaks together” the lump of cells and the person: This lump of cells is a person. Human beings are honored and enabled to use this instituting word, a φυσ?ι, because according to Gen 2:7 and 19f, God granted unto human beings linguistic reason (λογοσ), and thus the power to define. In this intertwining of element and instituting word lies the human dignity, which is undeservedly conferred on humans as a categorical gift. This absolute gratuity implies the unconditional acknowledgment of the dignity and the personhood of human beings—before one can speak of any characteristics or abilities. Psalm 8 underscores the elementary human dependency on unconditional acknowledgment as an inviolable person, an acknowledgment preceding all human characteristics and achievements. The psalm further intertwines this acknowledgment and the commission to rule, which is conferred on human beings, as an insoluble unity. What at first appear to be opposites is in fact a synopsis and inseparable connection of creaturely human determinations that correspond to God's simultaneously being the almighty creator and the compassionate, merciful father. By using “dignity” and “person” as critical terms of negotiation, theology can engage in a conversation with the societal and political public. In rejecting the dominant determination of the “person” as an autonomous, self‐determinately active, individual rational being, theology finds an ally in juridical thinking, which also acknowledges the dignity even of persons unable to act. Two consequences are to be drawn concerning biotechnology: perceiving the remaining dependency, vulnerability and vanity of human beings forces us to abandon illusions of “self‐creation” and immortality. Second, priorities are required that determine the goals and limits of research—especially in protecting the personal dignity of embryos—in the light of our accountability before God the creator and judge.     

Book Reviews: Imagined Human Beings,by Bernard J. Paris,Yale University Press, 1997, 336 ps

The American Journal of Psychoanalysis -     

现代医学与人类延续的哲学思考

现代医学对人类疾病的治疗起了积极作用,但随着医学的不断进步,客观上也可能导致对人的自然演化过程的过度干预.疾病与健康是辩证统一的,物竞天择是包括人类在内的所有物种延续的不变法则.现代医学应主要定位在预防疾病以及倡导健康的生活方式,人类应顺应其自然选择的规律去发展与延续.