历史的沉思：医学伦理学与生命伦理学学科特点及定位

对医学伦理学与生命伦理学学科的特点及定位进行再认识,是推动两个学科发展的理性前提。再认识需要历史视野,即将其置于该学科发展尤其是生成该学科的实践资源演变的历史长河中加以动态考察。研究表明,医学伦理学具有在传承中追求完善的职业实践性系列特点,定位为医学与伦理学交叉学科不存异议,将其称为人文医学学科具有创新价值,但需充分论证;生命伦理学虽同医学伦理学联系密切且有所重叠,但却具有追踪生命科学发展前沿的专业实践性系列特点,因而可将其定位为生命科学、伦理学、医学伦理学等相互交叉的新学科。     

出生缺陷儿的伦理决策探讨

出生缺陷儿的救治决策不仅是新生儿科医生和患儿家长面临的难题,也是无法回避的社会问题。除了医学科学上的可行性外,出生缺陷儿的救治决策是否合乎伦理也十分重要。阐述了出生缺陷儿的处置困境的现实来源和相关伦理学理论,回顾了国内外的相关法律法规及存在的问题,并结合国外经验启示和具体案例,探讨出生缺陷儿的处置决策的主体、原则和方案。同时,针对建立更加全面的社会机制、法律法规提出建议,以供未来的临床实践参考。     

对新冠病毒肺炎危重症患者引入缓和医疗的伦理论证

新型冠状病毒肺炎尚无治疗特效药和疫苗。在继续加强防控的同时,把有限的资源优先放在探索对重症和危重症患者的支持性治疗,积极建立和完善对重症、危重症患者及其家属的缓和医疗等方面,有利于患者群体利益最大化,经得起伦理辩护。缓和医疗有助于改善患者预后,降低住院病死率,有效缓解患者濒死痛苦;对医患双方而言,如果死亡已无可避免,帮助临终者走得平安、少些痛苦,是医学对患者最后的人文关怀。     

Business Ethics without Philosophers? Evidence for and Implications of the Shift From Applied Philosophers to Business Scholars on the Editorial Boards of Business Ethics Journals

This article considers the relationship between business ethics and philosophy, specifically in relation to the field and persons working in it. The starting point is a grammatical one: business ethics by the rules of grammar belongs to ethics. In terms of academic disciplines, it belongs to applied ethics, which belongs to ethics, which belongs to practical philosophy, which belongs to philosophy. However, in the field of business ethics today one will seldom meet colleagues from philosophy; instead, they will come from business, applying business studies perspectives, approaches, and increasingly quantitative methods. This article provides empirical evidence that today the three top journals with “business ethics” in their titles (and “awarded” a high impact factor) are mostly run (in terms of their editorial boards) by business scholars with PhDs in business. The article compares the three journals today with their inaugural issues and finds that at their inception all three were run by a majority of philosophers. The article discusses six possible explanations for this shift and provides suggestions for how to bring business ethics back to philosophers (and vice versa).     

Right Action as Virtuous Action

I argue in favour of the central claim of virtue-ethical accounts of right action: that right action is virtuous action. First, I disambiguate this claim and argue for a specific interpretation of it. Second, I provide reasons to prefer target-centred over both agent-centred and motive-centred accounts of virtuous action. Third, I argue that an action is right if, only if, and because it is overall virtuous. Finally, I respond to important arguments to the contrary.     

Moral (dis)engagement with anthropogenic climate change in online comments on newspaper articles

Anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is widely acknowledged to be morally significant, but little is known about everyday moralising around ACC. We addressed this gap via quantified thematic analysis of 300 online comments to British newspaper articles on ACC, drawing on Bandura's moral disengagement theory. Moral disengagement through denial of ACC was widespread. Other disengagement strategies, such as palliative comparison and diminishing agency, occurred less often. There was also some moral engagement, most often through assertions of the existence of ACC and/or its harmful effects. Moral disengagement was significantly more common in comments on right wing than left wing newspapers, whereas the opposite was true of moral engagement. Although Bandura's framework provided a useful starting point to make sense of ACC moralising, it did not capture moral concerns that extended beyond its “harm/care” remit. In particular, many “denial” comments included a “dishonesty” discourse, whereby ACC proponents were accused of deception for ulterior motives. To classify this discourse as moral disengagement obscures its engagement with a different set of moral issues around trust and honesty. We suggest that Bandura's theory represents one possible “moral landscape” around ACC and could be extended to encompass a broader range of moral concerns.     

《管子》生态伦理思想及其当代启示

《管子》生态伦理思想具有丰富而深刻的内涵,“天人相分”与“天人合一”的天人观,“道为物要”与“德润万物”的伦理观,“人君天地”与“人与天调”的实践观。其深刻的精神理念对我们今天的生态文明建设具有重要的借鉴意义。这些启示我们应从强化生态意识、加强生态制度建设、实施行为生态化建设、坚持生态化修养建设等方面加强生态文明建设。     

试探回族家庭伦理谚语的形成及意义

本文通过对回族家庭伦理谚语内容的分析,从民俗学视角对回族家庭伦理谚语的形成及其所反映的民众观进行了探讨,认为回族家庭伦理谚语的形成主要是通过对经典的借用和转化、对相邻民族谚语的采借以及自身的创造三种方式实现的;从回族家庭伦理谚语的内容我们可以看到回族民众以父子关系为家庭本位,注重家庭成员平等关系,以健康、和谐为导向的家庭伦理观。     

Compassion and purity: the ethics and boundary-making of Christian evangelicals

The paper explores the ethical attitude of Christian evangelicals in a church in Britain and how it affects boundary-making of their community. Evangelicals in the case study seek to be accepting of the person and to refrain from being judgemental. The paper distinguishes between the person-centred ‘ethic of compassion’ and the norm-centred ‘ethic of purity’. The ethic of compassion consists in accepting another and recognising the dignity of another based on shared humanity. It is a frame of mind that combines moral intention with the emotions of empathy and sympathy. In contrast, the ethic of purity privileges adherence to the moral order of the group over considerations for the person. The ‘compassionate’ frame of mind weakens boundaries, while the ‘pure’ frame of mind reinforces them. The boundaries of a community result from the interplay of the two ethics.     

Situating Moral Justification: Rethinking the Mission of Moral Epistemology

This is the first of two companion articles drawn from a larger project, provisionally entitled Undisciplining Moral Epistemology. The overall goal is to understand how moral claims may be rationally justified in a world characterized by cultural diversity and social inequality. To show why a new approach to moral justification is needed, it is argued that several currently influential philosophical accounts of moral justification lend themselves to rationalizing the moral claims of those with more social power. The present article explains how discourse ethics is flawed just in this way. The article begins by identifying several conditions of adequacy for assessing reasoning practices designed to achieve moral justification and shows that, when used in contexts of cultural diversity and social inequality, discourse ethics fails these conditions. It goes on to argue that the failure of discourse ethics is rooted in its reliance on a broader conception of moral epistemology that is invidiously idealized. It concludes by pointing to the need to rethink both the mission and the method of moral epistemology.