改革开放30年来的中国女性主义伦理学研究

70年代之前,性别是一切女性主义者在探究妇女千百年来受歧视和压迫根源时最先投向的视点.因此,性别理论是女性主义伦理学研究的基础.中国学者从引入、介绍西方女性主义伦理学,到对女性主义伦理学展开深入研究,使得女性主义伦理学成为当今中国女性主义哲学学科中探讨最为充分、深入的一个领域.本文将从西方女性主义伦理学的介绍和引入、深化和发展以及若干实践主题的探讨等三个方面对改革开放30年来我国的女性主义伦理学研究做一综述.     

当代伦理学的新发展:女性主义伦理学评介

女性主义伦理学是当代伦理学中反主流规范伦理学中的一支。它将女性身份作为反思西方社会生活的一个符号代码,试图以性别分析方法剖析伦理学领域内性别权力的运作,以结束使女性受压迫的伦理意识和谋划,达到更合理的对伦理道德的理解。同时它批判了规范伦理学的普遍主义理论体系与论证方式,质疑了主流伦理理论的基本预设与价值建构。女性主义伦理学探究是一个正在进行的过程,当代伦理学多元化发展的潮流中,女性主义的探究为伦理学的发展提供了更大空间。     

西方女性主义伦理学研究综述

女性主义伦理学伴随着西方女权运动的深化,产生于最近三十年,其主要标志是卡罗尔·吉利根教授的《不同的声音——心理学理论与妇女发展》的出版.此后,女性主义伦理学渗透到社会的各个领域,如政治伦理、生态伦理、生命伦理、性伦理等领域,形成不同的交叉学科.作为女性主义伦理学的主要组成部分的关怀伦理学,一直备受女性主义伦理学家的关注.关于关怀伦理学,学术界比较有争议的几个问题有:性别与道德的关系、关怀与正义的关系、关怀伦理学的理论归属等.女性主义伦理学的出现为女性解放运动提供了理论上的支撑,同时,也为伦理学的研究提供了一种新的研究方法——性别分析法.但是,女性主义伦理学作为一种新兴学科,其在理论上和实践上仍然具有一定的局限性.     

论当代生命伦理学与人权

生命伦理学面临诸多的伦理问题,其中最为凸显的是人权困境,生命伦理学与人权有着内在的本质联系和契合点,人权是生命伦理的核心和生长点,人权的基本理论和原则使生命伦理学的存在与发展成为可能,并且成为活生生的伦理现实。生命伦理学饱含丰富的人权意蕴,成为人权理论合理性的印证。要科学审视当代生命伦理学和人权关系,化解人权困境,推动生命伦理学的发展。     

浅析医患矛盾的形成与消解：—女性主义视角

人类的伦理学历史发展了几千年 ,伦理学家纷纷从不同角度切入历史 ,女性主义伦理学从性别入手 ,对道德进行研究 ,用女性和女性主义的视角来看世界 ,看社会 ,看社会生活中各种各样的伦理道德问题。1　女性主义伦理学的特征女性主义伦理学与西方传统伦理学不同。传统伦理学的目标在于发现、提出、解释指导人们行为的那些普遍的、公正的、不分种族阶级的应用于每个人的道德原则。女性主义伦理学则试图审视批判传统伦理学中对妇女声音的忽略 ,批判带有压迫妇女性质的伦理理论 ,并重新确立起自己的理论。女性主义伦理学产生于女性主义运动 ,在历…     

论道德义务的人权基础

随着我国政治、经济和文化的不断发展,对人权的理论研究在相关的学科领域日益受到重视。2010年4月23日,为庆祝中国社会科学院哲学研究所建所55周年,哲学研究所伦理学研究室主办了以"人权与伦理学"为主题的学术论坛,围绕着人权与伦理学的关系问题进行了热烈讨论。本期刊发的专题文章,即以本次论坛上宣读的论文为主,期望以此引起学界对人权与伦理学问题的关注,使人权研究在伦理学界获得一种与其重要性相符的地位。     

人权视域的伦理问题——第二届人权与伦理学论坛述评

2011年10月20日至23日,由中国社会科学院哲学所伦理室主办、西南大学政治与公共管理学院承办的"第二届人权与伦理学论坛"在重庆西南大学隆重召开.来自中国社会科学院、武汉大学、西南大学、复旦大学、上海师范大学、江西社科院等单位的专家学者及伦理学专业的研究生立足人权视角,就人权基础理论、人权与应用伦理问题展开了激烈讨论.一、人权基础理论人权基础理论的讨论主要围绕人权的内涵、本质,以及基于伦理史的人权理论两个层面展开.其一,人权的内涵、本质.中国社科院甘绍平研究员主张,人权是人之为人的最基本的权利.他认为伦理学的出发点是人的本质规定性,即人的意志与行为的自主性和人的利益需求性.     

祛弱权:生命伦理学的人权基础

没有任何一个人始终处在坚韧性状态,每一个人都不可避免地时刻处在脆弱性状态.因此,祛除普遍的脆弱性的价值诉求在道德实践中就转化为作为人权的祛弱权.生命伦理学以祛弱权为其人权基础,也就成了有根的伦理学.     

尊严平等与关怀:女性主义生命伦理学

女性主义生命伦理学试图从根本上颠覆男尊女卑的传统伦理观念,倡导从制度层面确保女性独立的社会地位,捍卫女性权利与尊严.女性主义生命伦理学还以其特有的关怀主义特征,呼吁性别平等,强调人文关怀,注重社会公平,成为构建和谐社会的重要理论思潮.     

尊重生命:禅宗能帮助我们建立一门环境伦理学吗?

环境伦理学使西方伦理学走到了一个转折点.一切伦理学都在寻求一种对生命的适当尊重.这就要求把伦理学应用于商业、法律、医学、技术、国际发展以及核裁军等领域,尤其是这样的领域:在这里科学(无论理论科学还是应用科学)使我们有了新的认识和新的力量.并使我们对伦理学和宗教所发现的人权有了更为敏锐的感受能力.但是,所有这些应用没有一个探究是否可能存在超出人类范围的义务.要尊重生命就要有一种类似于关心人类幸福的其他伦理学,而现在就是要有关心环境的伦理学.环境伦理学对生命的尊重更进了一步,它要探讨是否可能存在非人类的义务对象.我们所需要的伦理学关心的是,与文化融为一体的     

GLOBAL JUSTICE AND THE LIMITS OF HUMAN RIGHTS

To a great extent, recent discussion of global obligations has been couched in the language of human rights. I argue that this is a mistake. If, as many theorists have supposed, a normative theory applicable to obligations of global justice must also respect the needs of justice internal to recipient nations, any such theory cannot take human rights as an important moral notion. Human rights are inapplicable for the domestic justice of poor nations, and thus cannot form a plausible basis for international justice. Instead, I propose an alternative basis, a form of welfarist maximizing consequentialism. My alternative is superior to rights-based theories in dealing with the special problems of justice found in poor nations.     

Coercion,Care, and Corporations: Omissions and Commissions in Thomas Pogge's Political Philosophy

This article argues that Thomas Pogge's important theory of global justice does not adequately appreciate the relation between interactional and institutional accounts of human rights, along with the important normative role of care and solidarity in the context of globalization. It also suggests that more attention needs to be given critically to the actions of global corporations and positively to introducing democratic accountability into the institutions of global governance. The article goes on to present an alternative approach to global justice based on a more robust conception of human rights grounded in a conception of equal positive freedom, in which these rights are seen to apply beyond the coercive political institutions to which Pogge primarily confines them (e.g. to prohibiting domestic violence), and in which they can guide the development of economic, social and political forms to enable their fulfillment.     

The Problem with “Caring” Human Rights

Although Daniel Engster's “caring” human rights are, on the surface, a compelling way to bring the concept of care into the international political realm, I argue they actually serve to perpetuate some of the same problems of mainstream human‐rights discourses. The problem is twofold. First, Engster's particular care theory relies on an uncritical acceptance of our dependence relations. It can, therefore, not only overlook how local and global institutions, norms, and the marketplace shape our relations of (inter)dependence, but also serve to further naturalize our current dependence relations. Second, Engster's caring human rights are only minimally feminist, which means that they do not pay attention to the way in which women's full and equal political participation is a necessary component to challenging and overcoming the oppression, marginalization, and exploitation of women and their caring labor worldwide. Although I am sympathetic to Engster's goals and some of his proposed policy solutions, I argue that we should not abandon the critical, feminist lens of care ethics in favor of “caring” human rights that cannot overcome the care critique of mainstream human‐rights discourses.     

Future ethics: risk,care and non-reciprocal responsibility

As the number of intrinsically unknowable technologically produced risks global society faces continues to grow, it is evident that the question of our responsibilities towards future people is of urgent importance. However, the concepts with which this question is generally approached are, it is argued, deficient in comprehending the nature of these risks. In particular, the individualistic language of rights presents severe difficulties. An alternative understanding of responsibility is required, which, it is argued, can be developed from phenomenological and feminist concepts of care. Such concepts privilege an understanding of human beings that is primarily relational rather than individualistic, and show that responsibility is, in the first place, about connection rather than respecting separation. Care, by opening up for us an understanding of the diversity of values that are constitutive of a worthwhile life, also connects us to the future as the future of care. As such, it provides us with ethical resources that can guide us in the face of uncertainty, including general principles of action and the desire for institutions that can articulate them.     

The place of human rights and the common good in global health policy

This article offers an integrated account of two strands of global health justice: health-related human rights and health-related common goods. After sketching a general understanding of the nature of human rights, it proceeds to explain both how individual human rights are to be individuated and the content of their associated obligations specified. With respect to both issues, the human right to health is taken as the primary illustration. It is argued that (1) the individuation of the right to health is fixed by reference to the subject matter of its corresponding obligations, and not by the interests it serves, and (2) the specification of the content of that right must be properly responsive to thresholds of possibility and burden. The article concludes by insisting that human rights cannot constitute the whole of global health justice and that, in addition, other considerations—including the promotion of health-related global public goods—should also shape such policy. Moreover, the relationship between human rights and common goods should not be conceived as mutually exclusive. On the contrary, there sometimes exists an individual right to some aspect of a common good, including a right to benefit from health-related common goods such as programmes for securing herd immunity from diphtheria.     

The global workspace theory,the phenomenal concept strategy,and the distribution of consciousness

Peter Carruthers argues that the global workspace theory implies there are no facts of the matter about animal consciousness. The argument is easily extended to other cognitive theories of consciousness, posing a general problem for consciousness studies. But the argument proves too much, for it also implies that there are no facts of the matter about human consciousness. A key assumption is that scientific theories of consciousness must explain away the explanatory gap. I criticize this assumption and point to an alternative strategy for defending scientific theories of consciousness, one that better reflects the ongoing scientific practice. I argue there are introspectable inferential connections from phenomenal concepts to functional concepts that scientists can use to individuate the global workspace in terms of capacities that animals and humans share.     

Translating the Human Right to Water and Sanitation into Public Policy Reform

The development of a human right to water and sanitation under international law has created an imperative to implement human rights in water and sanitation policy. Through forty-three interviews with informants in international institutions, national governments, and non-governmental organizations, this research examines interpretations of this new human right in global governance, national policy, and local practice. Exploring obstacles to the implementation of rights-based water and sanitation policy, the authors analyze the limitations of translating international human rights into local water and sanitation practice, concluding that system operators, utilities, and management boards remain largely unaffected by the changing public policy landscape for human rights realization. To understand the relevance of human rights standards to water and sanitation practitioners, this article frames a research agenda to ensure that human rights aspirations lead to public policy reforms and public health outcomes.     

The effects of exposure to feminist ideology on women's body image

Body image disturbance has become a common problem among women and there is a need to focus on creating empirically supported treatments. Psychoeducational interventions have reduced body image dissatisfaction, but their impact is limited because they do not offer women adaptive methods of interpreting the many appearance-related messages they receive. This study examined if exposure to a feminist perspective may provide alternative interpretations of cultural messages, thereby increasing body image satisfaction. Participants were randomly assigned to a feminist or psychoeducational intervention, or a control group. Exposure to the feminist condition resulted in increased self-identification as a feminist and greater appearance satisfaction, and changes in feminist identity were related to positive changes in body image. The findings indicate that exposure to feminist theories may serve as an effective intervention strategy.     

Feminist Bioethics: Where We've Been, Where We's Going

The primary contribution of feminism to bioethics is to note how imbalances of power in the sex-gender system play themselves out in medical practice and in the theory surrounding that practice. I trace the ten-year history of feminist approaches to bioethics, arguing that while feminists have usefully critiqued medicine's biases in favor of men, they have unmasked sexism primarily in the arena of women's reproductive health, leaving other areas of health care sorely in need of feminist scrutiny. I note as well that feminist bioethicists have contributed very little to bioethical theory. In the second part of the paper I suggest two future directions for feminist bioethics. The first is to expand its critique of gender bias beyond reproductive medicine, devoting attention to the same issues raised by advances in biomedical technology as are taken up by mainstream bioethicists. The second is to develop bioethical theory that is more responsive than are mainstream moral theories to the social practices that subordinate women and minority groups.     

Human Rights,Cultural Pluralism,and International Health Research

In the field of bioethics, scholars have begun to consider carefully the impact of structural issues on global population health, including socioeconomic and political factors influencing the disproportionate burden of disease throughout the world. Human rights and social justice are key considerations for both population health and biomedical research. In this paper, I will briefly explore approaches to human rights in bioethics and review guidelines for ethical conduct in international health research, focusing specifically on health research conducted in resource-poor settings. I will demonstrate the potential for addressing human rights considerations in international health research with special attention to the importance of collaborative partnerships, capacity building, and respect for cultural traditions. Strengthening professional knowledge about international research ethics increases awareness of ethical concerns associated with study design and informed consent among researchers working in resource-poor settings. But this is not enough. Technological and financial resources are also necessary to build capacity for local communities to ensure that research results are integrated into existing health systems. Problematic issues surrounding the application of ethical guidelines in resource-poor settings are embedded in social history, cultural context, and the global political economy. Resolving the moral complexities requires a commitment to engaged dialogue and action among investigators, funding agencies, policy makers, governmental institutions, and private industry.