共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
2.
当代生殖技术对女性的尊严可能带来双重效应:一方面可能提升女性的尊严,另一方面也可能贬损女性的尊严.女性惟有摆脱父权制文化给定的女性形象,重构女性主体性,赢得做人的尊严,才能维护自己的女性尊严.也就是说女人只有首先被当做人来尊重,然后才可能被当做女人来尊重.惟其如此,生殖技术对于女人才是福音,否则它会成为女人的梦魇. 相似文献
3.
死亡的尊严问题是当代生命伦理学中讨论的一个重要问题。在当代的医疗实践中,各种新的医疗技术在老年人临终阶段的应用,已经引发了各种维护死亡的尊严之激烈争论。本文试图重建儒家的人的尊严和死亡的尊严之基本含义,并从这些观念出发,对死亡的尊严与人的生物学生命之关系,死亡的尊严与人的痛苦之关系,以及死亡的尊严同人的自主性之关系进行分析,并与西方思想家在这些问题上的立场做比较。文章还表明了,儒家关于人的尊严的观点是对以上问题作出的更好回答,它有助于化解西方死亡伦理研究中出现的概念混乱和理论矛盾。 相似文献
4.
5.
学科语境的首要因素是学科宗旨。生命伦理学以保护人类生命及其相关权利为宗旨,其语境中人的尊严有三个主要特征:以生命尊严为内核,以人格尊严为外围;属于现代人类中心主义价值观;具有指导化解原则冲突、奠基相关权利、贯通法律和政策等作用,是生命伦理学建制化行动的指南。在如何对待人的问题上,"人的尊严"凝聚了宗教和世俗、伦理和法律、政府和民间的道德共识,是生命伦理学的宝贵资源。 相似文献
6.
宪政的伦理基础及其社会价值追求 总被引:1,自引:1,他引:0
宪政伦理是指宪政的正当性及其道德意蕴.宪政的正当性来源于人类个体固有的最高价值--人的尊严,宪政制度生存的正当性基础即在于它是保障人有尊严地生活.人的尊严和价值的实现,是人的各种本质力量的全面发挥,是人之生存所内在的终极关怀的理性表达.终极关怀是人类最终获得全面自由的发展和彻底解放所需要的最高关怀.因此,在这个意义上可以说,宪政伦理在社会雏度所具有的道德意蕴就是人的解放,而在社会中保障人的应有权利则是人的解放的具体途径. 相似文献
7.
精神科医师特殊干涉权,因精神科领域医疗活动的行为、对象及医师权利具有特殊性,同时符合伦理学的不伤害原则和公正原则,这也是医师自主权的合理运用,因此具有合理性.但是在社会实践中,干涉权由于经常被扩张化而侵犯了患者的利益.由此提出干涉权必须坚持人道主义精神的、坚持医学伦理学的基本原则以及技术规范. 相似文献
8.
9.
社会保障的伦理阐释是一项以伦理学的讨论为基础,同时运用哲学思辨的方法探讨社会保障的道德正当性、内涵的伦理意蕴及伦理价值并对它们进行反思的活动。活动的起点是社会保障的道德正当性,即社会保障的伦理基础问题。作为一种道德权利的人的尊严体现着人之为人的价值,彰显出社会保障的道德正当性。社会保障通过保障每个人免于生存危机来实现人的尊严;社会保障体系的建立意味着对人的尊严和自由的生存状态的保障。 相似文献
10.
基因技术的发展将基因隐私保护问题摆在人类面前,“采用怎样的方式才能有效保护基因隐私”是一个亟待解决的疑问。从分析侵犯基因隐私所带来的社会危害出发,对“权利形式是否适用于保护基因隐私”这一问题进行分析,并得出肯定性结论。 相似文献
11.
Philip Lee 《The Ecumenical review》2020,72(2):197-208
This article explores the implications of advances in communication technology for communication rights and the political, economic, and cultural challenges at global, national, and local levels. It argues that digital transformation cannot be left to market forces or to a benign vision of a world in which all governments are sufficiently liberal minded to permit dissent and peaceful revolution. Rather, digital transformation needs to be driven by the needs of peoples and communities who help construct communication and information ecosystems that are firmly rooted in principles of justice, freedom, equality, and mutual solidarity. To that extent, people and communities must be enabled to reach their own consensuses around their needs and what should be done, and they must be regularly and constructively consulted by those charged with implementing, regulating, and monitoring such ecosystems. 相似文献
12.
Katherine Eddy 《Res Publica》2006,12(4):337-356
The fact that welfare rights – rights to food, shelter and medical care – will conflict with one another is often taken to
be good reason to exclude welfare rights from the catalogue of genuine rights. Rather than respond to this objection by pointing
out that all rights conflict, welfare rights proponents need to take the conflicts objection seriously. The existence of potentially
conflicting and more weighty normative considerations counts against a claim’s status as a genuine right. To think otherwise
would be to threaten the peremptory force – and hence the analytical integrity – of rights. The conflicts objection is made
more pressing once we have conceded that welfare rights give people entitlements to what are potentially scarce goods. I argue
that welfare rights can survive the conflicts objection if, and only if, we take scarcity into account in the framing of a
given welfare right.
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Nuffield Political Theory Workshop in Oxford and the Canadian Philosophical
Association Congress 2006 at York University. I am grateful to Adam Swift, David Miller, Idil Boran, Sarah McCallum and two
anonymous referees for their comments, and to the Economic and Social Research Council for research funding. 相似文献
13.
Rights, autonomy, privacy, and confidentialityare concepts commonly used in discussionsconcerning genetic information. When theseconcepts are thought of as denoting absolutenorms and values which cannot be overriden byother considerations, conflicts among themnaturally occur.In this paper, these and related notions areexamined in terms of the duties and obligationsmedical professionals and their clients canhave regarding genetic knowledge. It issuggested that while the prevailing idea ofautonomy is unhelpful in the analysis of theseduties, and the ensuing rights, an alternativereading of personal self-determination canprovide a firmer basis for ethical guidelinesand policies in this field. 相似文献
14.
Vittorio Bufacchi 《Metaphilosophy》2018,49(1-2):3-12
Diana Meyers argues that breaking the silence of victims and attending to their stories are necessary steps towards realizing human rights. Yet using highly personal victims' stories to promote human rights raises significant moral concerns, hence Meyers suggests that before victims' stories can be accessed and used, it is morally imperative that requirements of informed consent and non‐retraumatization are secured. This article argues that while Meyers' proviso is important, and necessary, it may not be sufficient. First, one potential problem with seeking to secure “informed consent” is that one has to ask for the consent, and in the act of asking one is potentially retraumatizing the victim. Secondly, the assumption that victims have ownership right over their stories, which is a key premise in Meyers's argument, is much more problematic than may appear. 相似文献
15.
《Journal of aggression, maltreatment & trauma》2013,22(1-2):71-77
Summary This article examines the nature and application of aspirational General Principle E (Respect for Peoples' Rights and Dignity) of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association [APA], 2002) and similar principles in other mental health professional ethics codes. Issues about aspirational versus enforceable standards are reviewed. Case examples and illustrations of the principle are provided. 相似文献
16.
Sumner B. Twiss 《The Journal of religious ethics》2004,32(1):39-70
An illustrative comparison of human rights in 1948 and the contemporary period, attempting to gauge the impact of globalization on changes in the content of human rights (e.g., collective rights, women's rights, right to a healthy environment), major abusers and guarantors of human rights (e.g., state actors, transnational corporations, social movements), and alternative justifications of human rights (e.g., pragmatic agreement, moral intuitionism, overlapping consensus, cross‐cultural dialogue). 相似文献
17.
James Turner Johnson 《The Journal of religious ethics》2018,46(2):379-398
Three recent books focus, in different ways, on the idea of human rights and its relation to religion and religious ethics. All three books discussed here address criticisms of the human rights idea and seek to establish the relationship of religion and human rights with regard to the field of policy. The present discussion begins with an overview that places these three books in the larger context of the development of the human rights idea and its historical relationship with religion. It then turns to Little's book, next to the collection of essays edited by Twiss, Simion, and Petersen, which is described internally as a Festschrift for Little, and then to Hogan's book, and in the final section it explores comparisons among the books. 相似文献
18.
Doron Shultziner 《The Journal of religious ethics》2006,34(4):663-683
This paper depicts the meanings of human dignity as they unfold and evolve in the Bible and the Halakhah. I posit that three distinct features of a Jewish conception of human dignity can be identified in contrast to core characteristics of a liberal conception of human dignity. First, the original source of human dignity is not intrinsic to the human being but extrinsic, namely in God. Second, it is argued that the “dignity of the people” has precedence over personal autonomy and liberty, which are core liberal pillars. The third characteristic pertains to the potential conflict between personal autonomy and liberty, and God's commandments. The theoretical analysis of human dignity is then examined in light of several Supreme Court decisions in Israel during the 1990s. I illustrate that Jewish religious and secular‐liberal conceptions pull in different directions in the rulings of liberal and religious Justices in Israel. 相似文献
19.
Bharat Ranganathan 《The Journal of religious ethics》2014,42(4):770-775
What are “human rights” supposed to protect? According to most human rights doctrines, including most notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), human rights aim to protect “human dignity.” But what this concept amounts to and what its source is remain unclear. According to Glenn Hughes (2011), human rights theorists ought to consider human dignity as an “intrinsically heuristic concept,” whose content is partially understood but is not fully determined. In this comment, I criticize Hughes's account. On my view, understanding inherent human dignity as an intrinsically heuristic concept tethers it to an “indeterminateness of sense,” which leaves it open to exploitation from theorists unsympathetic to the moral salience of rights and what rights are supposed to protect. 相似文献
20.
Will Kymlicka 《Canadian journal of philosophy》2018,48(6):763-792
Early defenders of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights invoked species hierarchy: human beings are owed rights because of our discontinuity with and superiority to animals. Subsequent defenders avoided species supremacism, appealing instead to conditions of embodied subjectivity and corporeal vulnerability we share with animals. In the past decade, however, supremacism has returned in work of the new ‘dignitarians’ who argue that human rights are grounded in dignity, and that human dignity requires according humans a higher status than animals. Against the dignitarians, I argue that defending human rights on the backs of animals is philosophically suspect and politically self-defeating. 相似文献