时间距离提高伦理判断

本文从识解水平理论角度研究问题表征对伦理判断的影响。本文推断,事件的时间距离使得人们更容易形成高识解表征,能更好地辨别决策困境中的伦理原则;未来结果考虑特征高的管理者更关注决策的长期后果,也倾向于维护伦理原则。研究用两个实验递进验证了假设。139位大学生被试参加了实验1,结果支持了假设;实验2采用92位MBA学生的样本重复检验结论,并进一步验证未来结果考虑如何调节影响时间距离与伦理判断之间的关系。     

Service-learning and engineering ethics

This paper explores ways in which service-learning programs can enhance ethics education in engineering. Service-learning programs combine volunteer work and academic study. The National Society for Professional Engineers (NSPE) and American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE) codes of ethics explicitly encourage engineers to seek opportunities, beyond their work-related responsibilities, to serve their communities. Examples of how this can be encouraged as a part of the educational experiences of engineering students are explored.     

The authorship list in science: Junior physicists’ perceptions of who appears and why

A questionnaire probing the distribution of authorship credit was given to postdoctoral associates (“postdocs”) in order to determine their awareness of the professional society’s ethical statement on authorship, the extent of communication with their supervisors about authorship criteria, and the appropriateness of authorship assignments on submitted papers. Results indicate a low awareness of the professional society’s ethical statement and that little communication takes place between postdocs and supervisors about authorship criteria. A substantial amount of authorship credit given to supervisors and other workers is perceived by the postdocs to violate the professional society’s ethical statement.     

Revolution and the counter-revolution: The conflict over meaning between P. B. Struve and S. L. Frank in 1922

Lecturer in the Lomonossov University, Moscow, specialist in the young Hegel; has also worked quite extensively on Russian prerevolutionary thought. Nikolaj Plotnikov is notably the co-editor of the recently re-published texts,Vekhi, Iz Glubiny in the collection 'Iz istorii oteestvennoj filosofskoj mysli' in conjunction withVoprosy Filosofii.     

Narcissism, Pride, and Humility

It is theorized by the author that Post-Biblical Jewish Religious Text should contain many practical psychological insights, given the fact that the authors of such literature were expected to be involved in the life of their communities, to be married with children, and be engaged in an occupation in order to function as religious authorities who were to be taken seriously. Many were physicians. As an exploration of this idea, some of the writings regarding the subjects of pride and humility are explored. A picture of a Jewish religious approach to pathological narcissism appears to emerge from this examination.     

"网恋"及其伦理问题辨析

“网恋”可划分为“网恋I”(通过网络恋爱 )和“网恋II”(纯粹的网恋 )两种类型 ,由“网恋”引发的伦理问题可分为“问题I”、“问题II”和“问题III”。这种区分有助于分辨网恋带来的不同性质的伦理问题 ,针对不同类型的网恋及其问题 ,提出不同的应对方法。     

医院的社会责任：伦理学视角

讨论了评价医院管理行动的伦理框架,严峻的卫生形势,医院的社会责任,其中着重讨论参与全面建设小康社会;向社会提供公平的卫生保健服务;重建医患信托关系以及调整与企业关系防止利益冲突。     

Integrating ethics in design through the value-sensitive design approach

The Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET) has declared that to achieve accredited status, “engineering programs must demonstrate that their graduates have an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.” Many engineering professors struggle to integrate this required ethics instruction in technical classes and projects because of the lack of a formalized ethics-in-design approach. However, one methodology developed in human-computer interaction research, the Value-Sensitive Design approach, can serve as an engineering education tool which bridges the gap between design and ethics for many engineering disciplines. The three major components of Value-Sensitive Design, conceptual, technical, and empirical, exemplified through a case study which focuses on the development of a command and control supervisory interface for a military cruise missile.     

Virtue Ethics, Theory, and Warrant

Are there good grounds for thinking that the moral values of action are to be derived from those of character? This ‘virtue ethical’ claim is sometimes thought of as a kind of normative ethical theory; sometimes as form of opposition to any such theory. However, the best case to be made for it supports neither of these claims. Rather, it leads us to a distinctive view in moral epistemology: the view that my warrant for a particular moral judgement derives from my warrant for believing that I am a good moral judge. This view seems to confront a regress-problem. For the belief that I am a good moral judge is itself a particular moral judgement. So it seems that, on this view, I need to derive my warrant for believing that I am a good moral judge from my warrant for believing that I am a good judge of moral judges; and so on. I show how this worry can be met, and trace the implications of the resulting view for warranted moral judgement.     

Scientific societies and whistleblowers: the relationship between the community and the individual

Formalizing shared ethical standards is an activity of scientific societies designed to achieve a collective goal of promoting ethical conduct. A scientist who is faced with the choice of becoming a “whistleblower” by exposing misconduct does so in the context of these ethical standards. Examination of ethics policies of scientific societies which are members of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP) shows a breadth of purpose and scope in these policies. Among the CSSP member societies, some ethics policies chiefly present the ethical culture of the community in an educational context and do not have enforcement procedures. Other policies are more comprehensive and include standards for certification, procedures for addressing ethical issues, and established sanctions. Of the 36 member societies of CSSP that have developed a code or adopted a code of another professional society, 18 specifically identified a responsibility to expose ethical misconduct, demonstrating an acknowledgment of the possible critical role of the whistleblower in addressing ethical issues. Scientific societies may revise their ethics codes based upon experience gained in addressing cases of ethical misconduct. In most cases, the action of a whistleblower is the initial step in addressing an ethics violation; the whistleblower may either be in the position of an observer or a victim, such as in the case of someone who discovers that his or her own work has been plagiarized. The ethics committee of a scientific society is one of several possible outlets through which the whistleblower can voice a complaint or concern. Ethical violations can include falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and other authorship disputes, conflict of interest and other serious violations. Commonly, some of these violations may involve publication in the scientific literature. Thus addressing ethical issues may be intertwined with a scientific society’s role in the dissemination of new scientific results. For a journal published by a scientific society, the editor can refer at some point to the ethics committee of the society. Whereas, in the case of a journal published by a commercial publisher, the editor may be without direct support of the associated scientific community in handling the case. The association of a journal with a scientific society may thus direct a whistleblower towards addressing the issue within the scientific community rather than involving the press or talking to colleagues who may gossip. A formal procedure for handling ethics cases may also discourage false accusers. Another advantage of handling complaints through ethics committees is that decisions to contact home institutions or funding agencies can be made by the ethics committee and are not the responsibility of the whistleblower or the editor of the journal. The general assessment is that the establishment of ethics policies, especially policies covering publication in society journals, will promote a culture supportive of whistleblowers and discouraging to false accusers. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the symposium entitled “Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t: What the Scientific Community Can Do About Whistleblowing” held during the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Seattle, Washington, 15 February, 1997.