"伦理"与"道德"辨析

在日常使用中,"伦理"与"道德"往往被当作同义词或近义词使用,这种现象已经引起了学术理论的混乱,本文归纳了学术界目前现存的几种有代表性的理论观点,并对"伦理"与"道德"的东西方涵义及二者的相互关系进行了辨析与梳理。笔者认为,西方的伦理与道德的涵义相近,但与中文里伦理与道德的涵义有别;中文里伦理与道德的涵义存在着本质的区别。东西方的词源词义不可能完全对应,更不能以西方文化中伦理与道德的词源学涵义来取代中国文化里伦理与道德的基本涵义。对二者的正确理解必须依赖于相应的文化背景。     

父母家校沟通与小学生参与数学课外补习的关系研究

基于某特大型城市学区658名小学四年级学生及其父母的调查数据,讨论小学生参与数学课外补习的影响因素,特别是家校沟通的作用。数据分析结果表明：在控制学生数学学业成绩与家庭社会经济地位的情况下,母亲的家校沟通行为可以显著预测四年级学生的数学课外补习参与情况,而未发现父亲的家校沟通行为的预测作用,研究结论印证了信息沟通在家庭教育决策中的重要作用。     

试论《淮南子》对"法"、"德"、"风俗"的糅合

在《淮南子》糅合“法”、“德”、“俗”的治道思想中,蕴涵了“反秦／袭秦”（对“法”的改良）、“倡道德／斥礼乐”（对“德”的期待）并存的内在特质,同时,还对风俗在民间社会中的教化、规范功能有着充分的认识。     

论政治道德的定位

政治生活的整合和政治文明的建设要求对政治道德进行合理的定位。政治道德的定位问题既涉及政治道德体系的内容问题,又关涉什么样的政治道德才是合理的问题。政治道德应该定位于政治公共领域这一客观基础;应该定位于个人权利与公共利益相结合的视角;应该定位于目的（或者功利）与道义（或者义务）的统一。     

Morality, Self-Interest, and Two Kinds of Prudential Practical Rationality

In this article it is assumed that human goodness is to be judged with respect to how well one does at practical reasoning. It is acknowledged that (1) there is a difference between moral practical reasoning (MPR) and prudential practical reasoning (PPR) and (2) what these would recommend sometimes conflict. A distinction is then made between absolute PPR and relative PPR and it is argued that doing well at absolute PPR is always consistent with MPR. It is also argued that since it is more reasonable to assess prudential practical rationality in terms of the absolute standard than the relative standard, there is no conflict between the demands of MPR (morality) and PPR (self-interest).

民办高校大一新生心理健康状况调查

采用症状自评量表对民办高校8111名大一新生进行问卷调查。结果表明,民办高校的大一新生在强迫、恐怖、精神病性三个因子上的得分显著高于全国常模,在躯体化、人际关系、敌对、抑郁、偏执五个因子上的得分显著低于全国常模;女生在各个因子上的得分均显著高于男生;本科生的心理健康水平低于总体学生的平均水平。     

最后通牒游戏中接收者拒绝行为的情绪义务模型

公平偏好使人们在面对不公平的分配时通常会有所表示,在最后通牒游戏中具体表现为对不公平报价的拒绝,有很多研究把拒绝的原因归结为不公平厌恶和互惠主义等社会偏好,但这并不能解释一些最后通牒变体游戏中的拒绝行为。但这恰恰支持了情绪义务模型。     

道德困境之困境—— 情与理的辩争

道德判断是人类日常生活中必不可少的评价性活动之一, 但道德判断中情与理的作用争执不休。从休谟和康德的哲学论争到发展心理学家对道德推理的关注, 直至现代社会心理学家对情绪的重新审视, 道德判断的决策机制已经演变为多种模型相互竞争的局面。在回顾和分析道德判断各种理论的基础上, 阐述了情绪和推理在道德判断中的作用, 认为今后应当更多地关注道德推理的实际作用, 并当运用更为先进的操纵手段, 同时注重情境的影响来考察道德判断中情与理的问题。     

Once More into the Breach of Self-Ownership: Reply to Narveson and Brenkert

In reply to Narveson, I distinguish his no-proviso argument from his liberty argument, and I show that both fail. I also argue that interference lacks the strategic status he assigns to it, because it cannot be appropriately distinguished, conceptually and morally, from prevention; that natural resources do enjoy the importance he denies they have; that laissez-faire economies lack the superiority he attributes to them; that ownership can indeed be a reflexive relation; that anti-paternalism does not entail libertarianism; and that he misrepresents the doctrines of a number of philosophers, including John Locke, Ronald Dworkin, and myself. In reply to Brenkert, I show that he seriously misconstrues my view of the nature of freedom, and of its relationship to self-ownership. I then refute his criticisms of my treatment of the contrasts between self-ownership, on the one hand, and autonomy and non-slavery, on the other. I also show that his attempt to exorcize the demon of self-ownership is multiply flawed.     

Religiosity and the value of being moral: Understanding the meaning of morality through a personal values perspective

We demonstrate how religiosity predicts relationships between personal values and perceptions of morality in four studies across two cultures (Jews in Israel and mainly Christians in the US). In Studies 1A (N = 337) and 1B (N = 200), we explored the commonalities and differences between religious and non-religious participants in the association between values and the importance of being moral. In Studies 2A (N = 131) and 2B (N = 250), we tested the role of religiosity in the association between values and evaluations of others’ morality. Power (negatively) and Benevolence (positively) were associated with morality across levels of religiosity. The associations with Conservation were more positive for more religious participants; the associations with Universalism were more positive for less religious participants. Finally, the associations with at least one of the Openness-to-change values were more negative if a person was more religious. Studies 2A and 2B showed these associations existed over and above differences in personal values.