Views of a good life and allostatic load: Physiological correlates of theories of a good life depend on the socioeconomic context

This research examines the relationship between one’s theory of a good life and allostatic load, a marker of cumulative biological risk, and how this relationship differs by socioeconomic status. Among adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher, those who saw individual characteristics (e.g. personal happiness, effort) as part of a good life had lower levels of allostatic load than those who did not. In contrast, among adults with less than a bachelor’s degree, those who saw supportive relationships as part of a good life had lower levels of allostatic load than those who did not. These findings extend past research on socioeconomic differences in the emphasis on individual or relational factors and suggest that one’s theory of a good life has health implications.     

Is the good life characterized by self-control? Perceived regulatory success and judgments of life quality

To what extent do people view self-control as central to achieving a healthy, high-quality life? While scientific evidence strongly supports the notion that self-control is associated with successful adaptation and optimal functioning, we examine whether individuals connect this trait with positive outcomes. In Study 1, participants rated the likelihood that an individual with high self-control (or self-esteem) would experience good health and a high-quality life. Studies 2–3 experimentally portrayed a target person as high or low in self-control (and self-esteem) before participants rated the target on an array of positive outcomes. Across studies, self-control was perceived as less strongly connected with a high-quality life than self-esteem. Mediation analyses suggest that people link self-esteem (but not self-control) with healthy behaviors that, in turn, lead to superior perceived physical and psychological health. While self-esteem is strongly associated with lay concepts of the good life, the importance of self-control may be comparatively under-recognized.     

Anger and the virtues: a critical study in virtue individuation

Aristotle and others suggest that a single virtue – ‘good temper’ – pertains specifically to anger. I argue that if good temper is a single virtue, it is constituted by aspects of a combination of other virtues. I present three categories of anger-relevant virtues – those that (potentially) dispose one to anger; those that delay, mitigate, and qualify anger; and those required for effortful anger control – and show how virtues in each category make distinct contributions to good temper. In addition to clarifying the relationship between anger and the virtues, my analysis has theoretical implications for virtue individuation more generally, and practical implications for character cultivation.     

《淮南子》人性说探微

《淮南子》人性说之微可见于四个基本方面。道的根本意义是道的人性意义,主要通过圣人境界予以论述,旨在确保真人境界的至上性,为人们贯通了永恒的精神追求之路。人性特征可概括为人性虚静,又从中阐发出人性善;道的自然性表现为人的自然性,伦理当视这种自然的人性为善。由于心的精神性功能,人心才能够显现人性;而人心显现人性是人心通过自我修养与接受圣人教化相结合的两条途径实现的。由德福未必一致的观点推导出祸福由己,德福关系与祸福关系合而为一。     

孟子荀子教育思想比较

孟子和苟子分别以“性善论”和“性恶论”为教育思想的道德基础。在教育方法上孟子强调由内而外,“反求诸己”的自我教育;而苟子强调外在的礼义教化,“隆礼”、“尊师”。他们教育的目的都是为了实现儒家的“仁政”。     

人为什么要有道德?(上)

本文从道德哲学的角度提出“人为什么要有道德?”的问题,并尝试给出某种解答。通过“善(好)生活”、“利益(关系)”和“人性(潜能)”三个核心概念,作者力图阐明道德之于人类生活的内在性,并从人类的生活目的、行为方式和人性潜能三个基本方面,揭示人类道德生活所内含的美德一目的论与规范一道义论之双重维度。     

MUST ETHICS BE THEOLOGICAL? A CRITIQUE OF THE NEW PRAGMATISTS

In the last decade there has been a pragmatic turn in the work of those doing Christian ethics, especially as represented by the work of Jeffrey Stout and Franklin Gamwell. The pragmatic turn represents a critique of the highly influential work of Stanley Hauerwas and Alasdair MacIntyre, which argues for a strongly intra-church ethics. The pragmatists are correct in arguing that Christian ethics must engage the public sphere. However, I argue that they are deeply mistaken in their claim that this engagement must rest on a weak or non-existent theology. I show that the claim that robust theology adds nothing to ethics, and that we can get along without it, is unsustainable.     

Making a Case for the Common Good in a Global Economy: The United Nations Human Development Reports[1990–2001]

Whereas the chief development question of the past has been “how much is a nation producing?” the human development perspective that characterizes the United Nations Human Development Reports shifts the question to “how are its people faring?” This shift reflects the fundamental moral orientation of the human development perspective which makes a case for the common good in a global economy. Relating the themes and claims of the human development reports to Brian Stiltner’s recent study on religion and the common good, the author shows a variety of ways in which the common good as a moral norm is embedded in the human development perspective, without the context of religion. She explicates the presence and utility of this norm in these United Nations reports written by economists, development specialists, and policy advisors who seek to present and assess the humanizing and dehumanizing features of globalization.