Terrorism,War, and The Killing of the Innocent

Commonsense moral thought holds that what makes terrorism particularly abhorrent is the fact that it tends to be directed toward innocent victims. Yet contemporary philosophers tend to doubt that the concept of innocence plays any significant role here, and to deny that prohibitions against targeting noncombatants can be justified through appeal to their moral innocence. I argue, however, that the arguments used to support these doubts are ultimately unsuccessful. Indeed, the philosophical positions in question tend to misunderstand the justification of both the prohibition against targeting noncombatants, and that of the permission to attack combatants, for which the paper offers a new account. Such misunderstandings make it all too easy to justify both terrorist actions and morally objectionable actions on the part of nations at war. Taking proper account of the role of innocence in the context of armed conflict will alter our ordinary ways of thinking about the ethics of war, with respect to both jus in bello and jus ad bellum.

责任心的多元内涵与结构及其理论整合

责任心研究, 在心理学不同领域有类似的对象、相近的内涵, 但又有不同的概念界定、研究方法和测量工具, 研究结果迥异。文章首先回顾了已有研究对责任心内涵和结构的探索, 试图从整体上把握责任心研究在各领域成果间的关联;其次, 对人格领域、道德领域和认知领域中与责任心相关的的理论进行了分析;最后, 基于对责任三角模型优势和局限的分析, 并结合先前理论的启示, 尝试提出了一个更具综合性的责任心三侧面理论模型, 并探讨了该模型在理论上可能具有的特征。     

中国传统儒家责任心理思想探究

与西方个人主义文化背景下建构的责任心理观不同,传统儒家以“天人合契”思想为主旨,强调在关系伦理的价值体系中探求责任心理的现实定位,从而形成了一种以朴素的血缘亲情为基础,以“孝悌”为核心,外推“礼义”以至人类社会与自然的责任心理观。它视“民胞物与”的仁爱精神、“敬德保民”的王道信念、“心忧天下”的忧患意识为核心内容,主张以个人为起点,经由“诚”“敬”的主观修养、“知行合一”的力行实践,并辅以外在刑罚约戒,达致“克己让人”的为他责任人格。责任心理思想是传统儒家学说“上本天道、下理人情”,融贯道德理想于人伦日用的中心环节     

科学隐喻的方法论意义

The essential significance of scientific metaphor lies in applying the general metaphorical theory to specific interpretations and elaborations of scientific theories to form a methodology of scientific explanation. It is a contextual grasp of objective reality. A given metaphorical context and its grasp of the essence of reality can only be valid when the context is continually restructured. Taking the context as a whole, the methodological characteristic of scientific metaphor lies in the unity of understanding and choice, experience and concepts, semantic structures and metaphorical domains, rationality and irrationality. As a form of thinking based on reasons, scientific metaphor plays an important role in invention, representation, explanation, evaluation, and communication. Translated by Liu Yiyu from Zhongguo Shehui Kexue 中国社会科学 (Social Sciences in China), 2004, (2): 92–101     

Citizens' Sense of Justice and the Legal System

When an actor commits a wrong action, citizens have perceptions of the kind of responsibility the actor incurs, the degree to which the act was mitigated or justified, and the appropriate punishment for the actor. The legislatively mandated law of criminal courts, statutes, and criminal codes deals with the same issues. Experimental evidence shows that there are important discrepancies between the principles that people and legal codes use to assign responsibility. That is, the moral retributive-justice principles that people use are sometimes in conflict with the directions in which modern code drafters are taking criminal law. These discrepancies may cause citizens to feel alienated from authority, and to reduce their voluntary compliance with legal codes.     

跨学科概念图创作能力与科学创造力的关系

采用科学领域的跨学科概念图创作任务, 探讨了跨学科概念图创作能力与科学创造力的关系。研究发现：（1）跨学科概念图创作能力与科学创造力显著正相关;（2）概念图创作的命题、交叉连接与创造力的流畅性、独创性、灵活性显著相关;交叉连接与独创性显著相关;（3）跨学科概念图创作能力的个体差异表现在科学创造力的各个方面。研究表明,跨学科概念图创作任务与科学创造力测验考察了学习者相似的心理能力;跨学科概念图创作不仅可以用于促进跨学科信息整合和知识建构,还可以作为理解学习者创造性思维能力的有效工具     

心理距离与后果严重性对人身安全决策的影响

已有研究发现决策者在为自己与不同他人决策时,其风险偏好存在差异。但是当对后果严重性不同的事件进行决策时,上述结果也并不总是如此。为了探究在人身安全情境中决策者面对后果严重程度不同的任务时,为自己和为他人决策时风险偏好的差异,实验一采用人际亲密度和决策所带来消极结果的严重程度分别操纵心理距离与后果严重性,结果发现决策者在后果严重任务中的决策比后果不严重任务更保守,为自己和为陌生人决策均比为最好朋友决策更冒险。这可能是由于决策者知觉到的决策责任不同所致。因此在实验一的基础上实验二引入决策责任这一变量,考察其在心理距离对风险决策影响中的作用,研究结果证明了我们的假设。     

Accountability in a computerized society

This essay warns of eroding accountability in computerized societies. It argues that assumptions about computing and features of situations in which computers are produced create barriers to accountability. Drawing on philosophical analyses of moral blame and responsibility, four barriers are identified: 1) the problem of many hands, 2) the problem of bugs, 3) blaming the computer, and 4) software ownership without liability. The paper concludes with ideas on how to reverse this trend. Several people have contributed generously to this work. Michael Davis, Deborah G. Johnson, Arthur Kuflik, Pamela Samuelson, Debra Satz, Richard De George, Larry May, and Dennis Thompson read drafts and made invaluable suggestions. Reviewers forScience and Engineering Ethics offered thorough and challenging commentary. An earlier version of the paper was presented at The American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division Meeting, December 1993, where audience comments and questions led to clarification of several key issues.