道德与关系惩罚对初中生公共物品困境中合作行为的影响

本研究模拟公共物品两难困境范式,以初中生为被试,通过两个实验分别考察道德惩罚和关系惩罚对不同性别和社会价值取向个体合作行为的影响。结果发现:(1)两种惩罚条件下初中生的合作水平均显著高于无惩罚条件,但当惩罚撤除后只有关系惩罚条件下的效应还存在;(2)初中女生在两种惩罚条件下的合作水平均显著高于无惩罚条件,而男生只在关系惩罚条件下出现该情况;(3)亲社会取向与亲自我取向初中生在两种惩罚阶段均表现出更高的合作水平,但在惩罚撤除后,只有亲社会取向者保持了高合作水平。这些结果表明,关系惩罚的作用较为持久,且对男生的影响更为突出,不过两种惩罚在亲社会取向者身上均显现出延后效应。     

Social desirability, approval and public good contribution

Behaviour in public good experiments is usually attributed partly to rational self-interest and partly to social norms and preferences. This paper examines if sensitivity to social desirability affects public good contribution and in what way. A pre-experimental measure of social desirability (SDS17) was used to match partners in a two-person public good game. Half the participants received experimenter approval based upon their investment. Contrary to predictions, the highest public good investment was by low social desirability participants in the approval condition. Social desirability was not positively related to pro-social behaviour. We consider its relation to experimental and social conformity.     

不同高血压治疗指南的比较与分析

为了更好的控制高血压的发病率和死亡率,达到对高血压患者的最佳和规范化治疗,各国家和地区的医疗机构均制定了相应的治疗指南,并及时进行更新和修正.由于这些指南之间存在着不同程度的差异,导致医疗工作者在学习和实践中产生了一定的困惑,通过运用哲学的思维和方法论对四种主要的高血压治疗指南的异同点进行比较和分析,有利于我国临床医师更好地将其运用于临床,从而更好地控制高血压患者的病情.     

Replies

John Fischer challenges me to defend my arguments regarding the badness of death; I sharpen my position, but make some concessions, discussing the possibility of postmortem harm. In response to John Deigh, I defend the account of disgust given in Hiding from Humanity, together with the research of Paul Rozin that I follow there. I discuss Patrick Devlin’s conservative position, agree that we need to object to its emphasis on solidarity, not only to its emphasis on disgust, and argue that Deigh’s statement of Devlin’s position is too kind to Devlin. In response to Henry Richardson, I summarize my reasons for thinking that the classical social contract tradition cannot handle well the problems posed by the issue of justice for people with disabilities, and that even Rawls’s position requires major modification if it is to do so. I explore differences between Richardson’s position and my own on the issues of self-respect, liberty, and primary goods.     

Moral Lumps

Can all goods or bads be broken down into smaller and smaller pieces? Can all goods or bads be added together with some other good or bad to get a larger amount? Further, how does moral significance track the disaggregation and the aggregation of moral goods and bads? In Part 1, I examine the limits placed on aggregation by moderate deontological moral theories. This paper focuses in particular on the work of Judith Thomson and T.M. Scanlon as well as on some of my own past work on the question of aggregation in the context of overriding rights. In Part 2, I examine consequentialist criticism that harms and benefits can be broken down into smaller pieces than the deontological theory allows and the argument that the moderate deontological view is too permissive since it allows aggregation of benefits within a single person's life. In Part 3 I suggest how a moderate deontological moral theory might respond to the criticisms. I cast my answer in terms of the existence of lumpy goods and bads. I argue that consequentialist critics of deontology are wrong to insist that all goods and bads can be disaggregated and aggregated at will. Instead, I offer the suggestion that most, or many, goods and bads come in morally significant lumps. That said, it will not always be obvious what those lumps are. Determining the texture of moral value is a substantive project in normative ethics. All I have hoped to do in this paper is suggest that two standard positions on how to group moral value are mistaken and give hope that we need not adopt one of the two. Part 4 of the paper responds to an objection and sets the stage for further work in value theory.     

The Advantage of Democratic Peer Punishment in Sustaining Cooperation within Groups

In social dilemma situations, individuals benefit from uncooperative behavior while exploiting resources of the collective. One prominent solution to prevent uncooperative behavior and to increase cooperation is to establish a system of costly peer punishment, that is, the possibility for every individual involved in the dilemma to impose costly punishment on interaction partners. However, recent research revealed that, in contrast to a situation without punishment, peer punishment is inefficient and maladaptive in the sense that the total payoff is reduced and punishment of cooperative individuals (i.e., antisocial punishment) is possible. In the present work, we propose that a system of democratic peer punishment, that is, direct and equal participation of each individual in the punishment decision‐making process with punishment only executed when a majority has voted for its execution, can address the shortcomings of a peer punishment system. Using iterated public goods games, we show higher cooperation levels, higher total payoffs, and reduced executed punishment in the democratic compared with a peer punishment system. Moreover, we document that fairness perceptions, satisfaction, and interpersonal trust are increased in the democratic punishment system. Implications for how cooperation and democratic punishment systems may evolve are discussed. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

公共健康领域权利与善的和解

公共健康领域中个人权利与共同善的冲突往往难以避免,如何调解二者之间的冲突成为公共健康领域的一个核心伦理问题。个人权利与共同善冲突的实质是个人与社会的权利冲突。但是,没有无权利的义务,也没有无义务的权利。如果能够从“义务”的视角思考公共健康问题,个人权利与共同善的冲突或许就可迎刃而解。个人要确保自己的权利,就必须对所处的社会承担义务。同时,社会也要承担保护个人权利的义务。个人与社会之间在履行相互的健康义务中实现了权利与善的和解。     

What makes people cooperate? Individual differences in BAS/BIS predict strategic reciprocation in a public goods game

Heterogeneity in contribution levels within public goods games (PGGs) is indicative of individual self- or other-regarding preferences. Reward and punishment mechanisms have been demonstrated to affect contributions in the PGGs. This paper examines whether dispositional sensitivities to rewards and punishments (BIS and BAS) explain some behavioural heterogeneity in PGGs. Seventy-two participants took part in a sequential PGG, in which, prior to making a decision about contributing, participants received information about how much their co-players had donated, which was manipulated either as high or low. They also completed the Carver and White BIS/BAS scales. Participants contributed more when other members of their group contributed a high proportion of the initial endowment and less when others gave a low amount. When participants knew that their group members had contributed a high amount, BAS Reward Responsiveness was significantly negatively correlated with the contribution levels, while BIS-anxiety was positively related to a lower proportion of zero contributions. The findings are interpreted in relation to strategic responding in the PGGs. Motivational traits, such as those conceptualized in Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory, are proposed to underlie pro-social behavioural preferences.     

Is children’s wellbeing different from adults’ wellbeing?

ABSTRACT

Call generalism about children’s and adults’ wellbeing the thesis that the same theory of wellbeing applies to both children and adults. Our goal is to examine whether generalism is true. While this question has not received much attention in the past, it has recently been suggested that generalism is likely to be false and that we need to elaborate different theories of children’s and adults’ wellbeing. In this paper, we defend generalism against the main objections it faces and make a positive case for it.