论愚蠢的德才欠缺理论

并非所有的愚蠢都是由弱智、知识有欠缺、社会阅历不足或低情商造成的,也不可将愚蠢简单地视作聪明的反义词。愚蠢是指个体因自身在品行或才智上有欠缺,导致无法以睿智、豁达的态度看待人生、展现人生,无法洞察生活中形形色色的人与事,从而易做出不理智的举动,或当其面临一个复杂问题情境时,因自身在品行或才智上有欠缺,导致做出错误的判断、决定或行动,由此而损害了他人或自己与他人的正当权益,最终可能既害人害己,甚至还给单位、国家或人类的健康与可持续性发展造成巨大损失。因此,愚蠢的实质是个体因自身在品行或才智上有欠缺而犯的错误。从类型上看,根据愚蠢的成因不同,可将愚蠢分为少智式和缺德式两大类型,二者在内涵、成因、子类型多寡、危害程度等方面都存在明显差异。     

Agents of Prosociality: Agency Affirmation Promotes Mutual Prosocial Tendencies and Behavior Among Conflicting Groups

Members of conflicting groups are motivated to restore their ingroup's agency, leading to antisocial tendencies against the outgroup. The present research tested the hypothesis that affirming conflicting groups' agency would increase their members' mutual prosociality. The effectiveness of agency affirmation was demonstrated in three contexts of conflict between groups: Switzerland and the EU following the 2014 referendum (Study 1), Israelis and Palestinians (Study 2), and Israeli rightists and leftists (Study 3). Study 1 found that in a nonconflictual context Swiss participants prioritized their moral (prosocial) over agentic goals, yet in the context of conflict with the EU, they prioritized their agentic over moral goals. This “primacy‐of‐agency” effect, however, was eliminated once their ingroup's agency was affirmed. Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated the positive effect of agency affirmation on prosociality among Israelis referring to Palestinians and Israeli rightists and leftists referring to the adversarial political camp. This effect was mediated by group members' readiness to relinquish some power for the sake of morality. Pointing to the importance of the affirmation's specific content, Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated that morality affirmation failed to increase prosociality. As such, the present research puts forward a promising strategy to reduce hostility and promote prosociality between conflicting groups.     

WHY I AM AN ACCOMMODATIONIST AND PROUD OF IT

There is a strong need of a reasoned defense of what was known as the “independence” position of the science–religion relationship but that more recently has been denigrated as the “accommodationist” position, namely that while there are parts of religion—fundamentalist Christianity in particular—that clash with modern science, the essential parts of religion (Christianity) do not and could not clash with science. A case for this position is made on the grounds of the essentially metaphorical nature of science. Modern science functions because of its root metaphor of the machine: the world is seen in mechanical terms. As Thomas Kuhn insisted, metaphors function in part by ruling some questions outside their domain. In the case of modern science, four questions go unasked and hence unanswered: Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the foundation of morality? What is mind and its relationship to matter? What is the meaning of it all? You can remain a nonreligious skeptic on these questions, but it is open for the Christian to offer his or her answers, so long as they are not scientific answers. Here then is a way that science and religion can coexist.     

Ethics,Changing Populations,and the Dental Profession

This review emphasizes the worldwide and U.S. evolving population demographics and the need for the dental profession to exercise its professional and ethical duty to expand its traditional patient base to provide needed services.     

On Luo Congyan’s Ethics

Luo Congyan put forward the idea that benevolence is the substance while righteousness is its function, which placed the intrinsic value of human beings on a more fundamental position and affirmed the unity of benevolent principle and universal norms from the perspective of the relationship between substance and function. The unity of benevolence and righteousness involves the connection between value and norms, and the latter relate to the relationship between morality and law in the broader sense. On the basis of the idea of using both benevolence and righteousness, Luo Congyan examined the relationship between morality and law. Corresponding to the emphasis on the role of both law and political power, Luo Congyan concerned himself with how to establish rational interpersonal relationships in various ways. Furthermore, Luo Congyan emphasized the significance of behavior in everyday life, while he affirmed that the universal principle should be followed. In this way, he developed the earlier Confucian thought. Translated from Studies in Ethics by Xiao Mo     

Separation of politics and morality: a commentary on Analects of Confucius

Confucians emphasizes and values morality, hence observers tended to regard moralities as politics so that the independent politics in the Confucian tradition has become implicit. Through a perusal of the Analects of Confucius, we can find that ethics and politics were separated from and independent of each other to Confucius, the primitive Confucian: he did not substitute ethics for politics. __________ Translated from Nanjing Shifan Daxue Wenxueyuan Xuebao 南京师范大学文学院学报 (Journal of School of Chinese at Nanjing Normal University) by Huang Deyuan     

池田大作的生命论伦理观——以《生命的尊严》为中心

伦理本源于社会生活,伦理的基础应当是人的生命和生活。池田大作立足于人的生命尊严来阐发幸福,倡导共生的道德风气,对生命的意义给予了新的诠释。     

《管子》论“且怀且威”及其现代启示

《管子》认为,治理国家既要采用怀柔政策,主张为政者"先之以德",通过整饬四维来形成良好的社会风尚;又强调"法不可不审",主张通过严刑峻法来树立君主的权威,赏罚严明,使人们严格遵守各项法令制度,坚持"且怀且威",礼法并重,其思想对现代社会有很好的启迪意义。