改革开放以来我国媒介伦理的研究及其反思

改革开放以来,随着传播学研究的深入开展,媒介伦理学的研究也取得了相当的成就。学者们重点研究了传媒伦理的基本理论、实践中的问题与冲突、以及提高传媒伦理建设水平的措施等问题,也有少数学者就媒介伦理的功能、媒介伦理与和谐社会建构、媒介伦理的研究历史作了尝试性的探讨。但也应该看到较之医学伦理等其他分支伦理学的研究,媒介伦理学的研究依然处于起步阶段,还存在诸多的研究空白。     

American Political Culture in Comparative Perspective

In order to formulate a comparative model of political cultures, a theory that integrates psychological, sociological and economic variables is developed. Within societies dominant political cultural themes stress particular patterns of right and obligation. These patterns simultaneously undergird social solidarity and justify an unequal distribution of rewards. Differences among political cultures exist vertically on an historical dimension of increasing moral comprehensiveness and horizontally on a dimension of moral content. Internal tensions deriving from technological development and from social discourse about the moral adequacy of norms stimulate change. A case study of American political culture, with its contrasting emphases on egalitarianism and individualism, assesses the theoretical claims.     

论公民道德建设的文化生态基础

为了使公民道德能在我国整个社会文化生态系统中获得稳定的、可持续的快速发展,必须深入考察、全面审视和正确把握我国现今的文化生态系统,努力探寻使系统保持良性循环并不断优化的最佳途径,从而为公民道德建设提供一个健康、坚实的客观文化基础。     

安乐死论纲

就发展中国式安乐死提出了１８条纲领性意见。指出安乐死是一种社会文明,需要进行学科的、理论的、法制的、伦理的建设,超越传统上升到新的时代高度。就安乐死的定义、本质、目的、性质、权利、分型、对象等基本问题提出了不同于国外的独立见解。对于安乐死的立法、法制管理的体制和程序,以及医学伦理、生命伦理要服从社会伦理,树立新的安乐死伦理观提出了具体建议。     

普世伦理如何可能

本文是我对同一主题探究的继续：关于建构普世伦理的方法论问题。基于一种“弱伦理模式”或低度普世化的立场,我主张通过由多元文化对话到公共理性共识的文化解释一理性推理之二维平行求证方式,寻求道德共识,从而建构一种低限度的可行的普世伦理。我承认并重视多元宗教作为普世伦理之文化价值资源的重要意义,但质疑任何以宗教作为普世伦理之基础的“强伦理模式”,甚至也不相信通过“弱宗教模式”来建立普世伦理的实际可行性。在文化多元、政治多极和经济利益主体多样化的实际条件下,建立一种“弱伦理模式”的普世伦理是惟一可以合理期待的。     

婚检“检”破处女膜映射出的医学伦理问题

近年来婚检或妇检过程中“检”破未婚女性处女膜的现象屡屡发生,给未婚女性的身心带来巨大伤害,既侵犯了未婚女性的合法权益,又严重地损害了医学伦理声誉。医师在检查未婚妇女的生殖器官时除了要遵循普通的疾病诊断特别是体格检查过程中的伦理要求和妇科检查道德规范外,在婚检过程中还应当特别强调遵循自愿检查(知情同意)原则、尊重原则、不伤害(安全性)原则,履行谨慎检查、保护隐私等医学伦理义务,切实遵守婚前体格检查的技术规范,确保被检妇女的权益不受侵害。     

关于晚期肿瘤患者临终关怀问题的探讨

分析了晚期肿瘤患者临终关怀的重要意义和特殊性,论述了临终关怀的主要内容,探讨了临终关怀中的伦理问题,特别是对是否告知患者实情和是否应该放弃治疗等问题进行了深入讨论和分析。并提出晚期肿瘤患者的临终关怀,要从生理、心理、社会、伦理等多方面、多角度关爱患者,帮助患者认识生命价值,理解生命意义,提高生存质量。     

WITHIN‐TRIAL CONTRAST: WHEN IS A FAILURE TO REPLICATE NOT A TYPE I ERROR?

Vasconcelos, Urcuioli, and Lionello-DeNolf (2007) report the results of five experiments that fail to replicate the results of our within-trial contrast study (Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, & Zentall, 2000) and suggest that our results may represent a Type I Error. We believe that this conclusion is not warranted because (a) there is considerable evidence in support of the effect and (b) the amount of training that they gave to their pigeons prior to test may not have been sufficient to observe the effect reliably. We suggest that when sufficient training is provided, reliable contrast can be found.     

Failure to replicate the 'work ethic" effect in pigeons

We report six unsuccessful attempts to replicate the "work ethic" phenomenon reported by Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, and Zentall (2000). In Experiments 1-5, pigeons learned two simultaneous discriminations in which the S+ and S- stimuli were obtained by pecking an initial stimulus once or multiple (20 or 40) times. Subsequent preference tests between the S+ stimuli and between the S- stimuli mostly revealed indifference, on average, between the S+ from the multiple-peck (high-effort) trials and the S+ from the one-peck (low-effort) trials, and likewise between the two respective Sstimuli. Using a slightly different procedure that permitted assessment of the relative aversiveness of low versus high effort, Experiment 6 again revealed a pattern of indifference despite showing that pigeons took considerably longer to begin pecking on high- than on low-effort trials. Our findings call into question the reliability of the original findings and the sufficiency of the hypothesized within-trial contrast mechanism to produce them.