可持续发展、社会公正与企业伦理

“可持续发展”概念的提出 ,旨在为改善人类生存状态而建构起三 E(Economics,Ecology,Equity)协调的社会发展指标体系 ,实现经济发展、生态平衡和社会公正三大目标。社会公正是现代伦理学的基本理论和基本原则。作为应用伦理学学科的企业伦理学 ,首先要应用社会公正的理论和原则去阐明企业伦理和企业公正问题。以企业公正为核心价值的企业伦理 ,逻辑地包涵了社会伦理、生态伦理对企业行为的公正要求 ,是实现可持续发展三大目标的必要条件。倡导以企业公正促进社会公正、环境公正的企业伦理观 ,承担起对全社会可持续发展的道义责任 ,是有远见的企业家为实现企业长远目标而必然作出的明智抉择     

应当重视管理公正研究

管理公正是公正在管理领域的体现,是在管理过程中使组织权利与义务达到平衡的原则,也是管理过程中追求的使组织权利与义务达到平衡的伦理价值目标。管理公正是管理学与伦理学整合的支点,研究和实践管理公正对深化管理伦理学研究,实现伦理化的管理,均具有重要的意义和价值。     

生命伦理学的学科框架、原则及相关问题之我见

生命伦理学应把主要的研究内容转移到精神、灵性与社会生命的伦理解读,研究什么是生命的伦理价值,以及"医疗与保健政策的公正"方面;生命伦理学的学科体系可分为原理(原道)、原论(原法)与原用(原实)三部分,可划分为理论生命伦理学与应用生命伦理学两部分;生命伦理学的原则可分为母原则,基本原则与应用原则;生命伦理学要鼓励创建各种学派,不要搞一言堂;在生命科学进化的今天,有必要保持心境平和,而不是戏剧性的躁动.     

辅助生殖技术与社会公正

从生命伦理学的角度看,以解决不育问题为最初目的的辅助生殖技术,实质上是实现社会公正的一种重要手段,但现实辅助生殖技术服务却也导致了一些社会不公正现象.就此提出某些实现辅助生殖技术服务社会公正的途径有重要意义.     

理念与发展:中国特色社会主义公正观

社会公正是伦理学等人文社会学科关注的核心问题。回顾改革开放四十年的实践与社会公正理念的发展,可感受中国关于公平效率问题的变化脉络,也能体会到社会主义市场经济改革开放的核心之一,即要让中国人民更多分享社会发展成果。公正作为表达社会发展标准和价值取向的范畴,在不同时代有不同内容,不同思想家不同理论派别的公正标准也各不相同,社会主义和资本主义的公正观不一样,自由主义与社群主义的公正理念也大相径庭。中国特色社会主义选择以马克思主义理论为指导。伦理学关于"好社会"的追问,与马克思主义公正理论,与中国共产党的执政"初心",其目标宗旨是一致的。我们应自觉增强道路自信、理论自信、制度自信、文化自信,走中国特色的社会主义共同富裕之路。     

环境公正研究的四个误区及消解

在环境公正议题研究的理论层面,至少存在四个误区,即议题名称误区、概念释义误区、原则设计误区和种际公正误区。议题名称误区是指不该将"环境公正"和"环境正义"这两个概念完全等同,消解的方法是还原这两个词的不同所指,分别用于应然之处;概念释义误区是指不该直接从环境公正出发定义环境公正概念,而是应从一般性的公正概念推出环境公正概念的定义;原则设计误区是指不该把环境公正原则设计成了用其他词汇命名的原则,消解的方法是通过回答"环境公正应为何"的问题来直接获得环境公正原则;种际公正误区是指不该弄出这一公正类型和论题,消解的方法是用"我们应该怎样对待其他生物物种"的问题取代它。这四个理论误区的存在会给环境伦理学的学术事业带来三种不利影响,需予以澄清。     

论生命伦理学的自主性原则

自主性原则是生命伦理学的首要原则,其本质在于个人自主地选择自己的思想和行为.自主分为思想自主、意愿自主和行动自主.自主性原则的思想前提是道义论与后果论.在生命伦理学中,尊重、知情同意、保密和隐私权是自主性原则的具体表现形式.在医疗实践中,自主权的行使必须与具体的情境相结合,其价值才能充分实现.     

科学与哲学是伦理学的必要基础——伊安·巴伯的伦理学思想探析

伊安·巴伯认为科学和哲学为伦理学提供了重要基础。一方面,虽然科学不能为推导出伦理原则提供一个自给自足的基础,但科学对伦理学有着重要贡献;另一方面,哲学中的功利主义原则及公正、自由等概念,使我们能够澄清评价选择的伦理原则。     

人类增强:在希望与风险之间

人类增强是生命伦理学领域中颇具争议性的话题.支持者和反对者针锋相对、莫衷一是.这场旷日持久的论战是学者们基于对增强概念的不同理解,分别在同代人之间和代与代之间两个维度上,围绕自由和公正两个伦理问题展开的.作为人类试图战胜脆弱性的努力,人类增强既给人类带来"变得更好"的希望,也可能会让人类陷入更大的风险中.厘清人类增强面对的本质性挑战,才能恰当地回答人类增强为何会成为一个道德上有争议的话题.     

论环境伦理学的现代化价值理念

在生态危机日渐加深的情况下 ,人们对现代化的期望开始与环境伦理学的价值理念统一起来了 ,这主要是由于环境伦理学强调现代化的发展必须以人的全面发展为宗旨 ,必须求得一种合乎代内公正和代际公正的发展 ;必须诉诸人的主观能动性的发挥并合理地运用科学技术。从中国现代化建设的内在要求看 ,弘扬环境伦理学的价值理念的目的主要是加强对生产领域的伦理约束和加强对人们选择生活方式的价值引导。     

WHY BIOETHICS NEEDS THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEDICINE: SOME IMPLICATIONS OF REFLECTION ON CONCEPTS OF HEALTH AND DISEASE

Germund Hesslow has argued that concepts of health and disease serve no important scientific, clinical, or ethical function. However, this conclusion depends upon the particular concept of disease he espouses; namely, on Boorse's functional notion. The fact/value split embodied in the functional notion of disease leads to a sharp split between the “science” of medicine and bioethics, making the philosophy of medicine irrelevant for both. By placing this disease concept in the broader context of medical history, I shall show that it does capture an essential part of modern medical ideology. However, it is also a self-contradictory notion. By making explicit the value desiderata of medical nosologies, a reconfiguration of the relation between medicine, bioethics, and the philosophy of medicine is initiated. This, in turn, will involve a recovery of the caring dimensions of medicine, and thus a more humane practice.     

The plurality of Chinese and American medical moralities: toward an interpretive cross-cultural bioethics

Since the late 1970s, American appraisals of Chinese medical ethics and Chinese responses to American bioethics range from frank criticism to warm appreciation, from refutation to acceptance. Yet in the United States as well as in China, American bioethics and Chinese medical ethics have been seen, respectively, as individualistic and communitarian. In this widely-accepted general comparison, the great variation in the two medical moralities, especially the diversity of Chinese experiences, has been unfortunately minimized, if not totally ignored. Neither American bioethics nor Chinese medical ethics is a field with only one dominant way of thinking. Medical moralities in America and China -- traditional and modern -- have always been plural and diverse. For example, American and Chinese cultures and medical moralities both exhibit individualistic and communitarian traditions. For this reason, bioethics in general and cross-cultural bioethics in particular must be fundamentally interpretive. Interpretive cross-cultural bioethics appreciates the plurality of medical morality within any culture. It can serve as a vital means of social and cultural criticism through engaged interpretations.     

Understanding the Trusted Doctor and Constructing a Theory of Bioethics

This paper offers a constructivist account of bioethics as an alternative to previous discussions that explained the ethics of medicine by an extrapolation of principles or virtues from ordinary morality. Taking medicine as a higher and special calling, I argue that the practice of medicine would be impossible without the trust of patients. Because trust is a necessary condition for medical practice, the ethics of the profession must provide the principles for guiding physician behavior and the profession toward promoting trust and being trustworthy. In a phrase, that principle is “seek trust and deserve it.” I sketch out how the concept of trust provides a different justification for common sense principles of bioethics and explain how the concept of trust provides reasonable guidance for resolving moral conflicts within medicine. The trust-seeking approach provides a new and unexpected ordering of some traditional medical values, it reveals the weightiness of previously undervalued bioethical precepts, and illuminates the centrality of some largely ignored obligations of medicine. It also has the power to guide clinical practice and to inform the profession about standards for medical institutions. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The origins and evolution of bioethics: some personal reflections

Bioethics was officially baptized in 1972, but its birth took place a decade or so before that date. Since its birth, what is known today as bioethics has undergone a complex conceptual metamorphosis. This essay loosely divides that metamorphosis into three stages: an educational, an ethical, and a global stage. In the educational era, bioethics focused on a perceived "dehumanization" of medicine by the rising power of science and technology. Remedies were sought by introducing humanities, ethics, and human "values" into the medical curriculum. Ethics was one among the humanistic disciplines, but not the dominant one. In the second era, ethics assumed a dominant role as ever more complex dilemmas emerged from the rapid pace of biological research. As such dilemmas were applied to medical practice, the need for a more rigorous and more formal analysis of their moral status was clear. Philosophically-trained ethicists had an obvious role. They began to teach, write, and profoundly influence medical education and practice. In the third -- and present -- period, the breadth of problems has become so broad that ethicists must, themselves, draw on disciplines well beyond their expertise -- e.g., law, religion, anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, and the like. The era of bioethics as a global enterprise is upon us. The original hope for humanizing medicine has not been overtly successful; however, much has been accomplished of value to patients, the profession, and society. Medical morality has been transformed into a formal, systematic study of a whole range of issues of the greatest significance to humanity. Now the major challenge is one of identity, or inter-relationships and connections between the theoretical and the practical. Bioethics has outgrown its beginnings.     

Four Faces of Fair Subject Selection

Abstract

Although the principle of fair subject selection is a widely recognized requirement of ethical clinical research, it often yields conflicting imperatives, thus raising major ethical dilemmas regarding participant selection. In this paper, we diagnose the source of this problem, arguing that the principle of fair subject selection is best understood as a bundle of four distinct sub-principles, each with normative force and each yielding distinct imperatives: (1) fair inclusion; (2) fair burden sharing; (3) fair opportunity; and (4) fair distribution of third-party risks. We first map out these distinct sub-principles, and then identify the ways in which they yield conflicting imperatives for the design of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the recruitment of participants. We then offer guidance for how decision makers should navigate these conflicting imperatives to ensure that participants are selected fairly.     

Respecting difference and moving beyond regulation: tasks for U.S. bioethics commissions in the twenty-first century

This article focuses on two possible missions for a national bioethics commission. The first is handling differences of worldview, political orientation, and discipline. Recent work in political philosophy emphasizes regard for the dignity of difference manifested in "conversation" that seeks understanding rather than agreement. The President's Council on Bioethics gets a mixed review in this area. The second is experimenting with prophetic bioethics. "Prophetic bioethics" is a term coined by Daniel Callahan to describe an alternative to compromise-seeking "regulatory bioethics." It involves a critique of modern medicine. In the contemporary context, the areas of biotechnology and access to health care cry out for prophetic attention. The Council has addressed biotechnology; unfortunately, that experience suggests that the kind of prophecy that it practices poses risks to conversation. With regard to access issues, the article proposes an effort that unites themes of human dignity, solidarity, and limits in support of reform, while highlighting, rather than papering over, differences.     

Medical Ethics,Bioethics and Research Ethics Education Perspectives in South East Europe in Graduate Medical Education

Ethics has an established place within the medical curriculum. However notable differences exist in the programme characteristics of different schools of medicine. This paper addresses the main differences in the curricula of medical schools in South East Europe regarding education in medical ethics and bioethics, with a special emphasis on research ethics, and proposes a model curriculum which incorporates significant topics in all three fields. Teaching curricula of Medical Schools in Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro were acquired and a total of 14 were analyzed. Teaching hours for medical ethics and/or bioethics and year of study in which the course is taught were also analyzed. The average number of teaching hours in medical ethics and bioethics is 27.1 h per year. The highest national average number of teaching hours was in Croatia (47.5 h per year), and the lowest was in Serbia (14.8). In the countries of the European Union the mean number of hours given to ethics teaching throughout the complete curriculum was 44. In South East Europe, the maximum number of teaching hours is 60, while the minimum number is 10 teaching hours. Research ethics topics also show a considerable variance within the regional medical schools. Approaches to teaching research ethics vary, even within the same country. The proposed model for education in this area is based on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Bioethics Core Curriculum. The model curriculum consists of topics in medical ethics, bioethics and research ethics, as a single course, over 30 teaching hours.     

GLOBAL BIOETHICS: TRANSNATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND ISLAMIC BIOETHICS

In the 1970s “bioethics” emerged as a new interdisciplinary discourse on medicine, health care, and medical technologies, primarily in Western, developed countries. The main focus was on how individual patients could be empowered to cope with the challenges of science and technology. Since the 1990s, the main source of bioethical problems is the process of globalization, particularly neo‐liberal market ideology. Faced with new challenges such as poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, hunger, pandemics, and organ trafficking the bioethical discourse of empowering individuals is no longer sufficient. Global bioethics nowadays is concerned with applying and implementing a universal ethical framework. Islamic bioethics has contributed to creating such framework (exemplified in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights) while at the same time it is continuously articulating and interpreting this framework in specific settings and contexts.     

公共行政的道德之维

公共行政道德,是现代公共行政的理论研究与实务运行的一个重要维度。但长期以来,公共行政领域存在着严重的忽视价值取向的“技术主义”倾向;公共行政道德以其公共性、服务性和责任性的基本特征,区别于其他领域或类型的道德性质;公共行政道德建设要正确认识和处理技术与价值、公正与效率、制度与品性、权力与权利的关系,坚持价值优先、公正优先、制度优先和权利优先的原则。