家庭德育:不能忽视的德育内容

家庭德育作为对学校德育的重要补充和延伸.并没有得到充分的重视.家长应该重视家庭德育,树立正确的德育观念,运用多种方法和手段,注意言传身教,配合学校搞好孩子的道德教育,促进孩子的全面发展和良好心理品质的形成.     

论康德的道德义务论及其德育启示

在《道德形而上学原理》中,康德以道德动机为起点,引出了"德性""善良意志""出于责任与合乎责任"等概念,提出了道德义务论这一概念。我国正处于社会转型的关键时期。功利化的经济发展、多元化的意识形态给高校大学生的思维方式、生活方式等都带来了一定程度的消极影响。本文从康德的道德义务论出发,探究了"理性""善良意志""道德命题"和"命令式检验"在其道德义务论中的地位与关系。从德育内容、立德树人、道德评价三方面提出建议,为当前高校德育工作提供一定的借鉴与参考。     

Making moral incentives pay

Politicians often appeal to moral principles as a least-cost method of enforcing their policy demands. To do so effectively, they must understand how such principles fit into ordinary people's decision functions. Here I distinguish three ways for formally representing moral principles. One reduces morality to enlightened self-interest, denying that morality has any special place in the decision calculus. Another, while acknowledging that people do internalize moral principles per se, enters them into utility functions as just another consumption good. Truly strong moral principles, however, are best represented by a third model of seriously held moral principles which must be kept formally apart from mundane considerations. Such principles are as precarious as they are powerful. Policy-makers who want to tap them must respect the formalisms that make them strong, most typically by shielding moral principles from contamination by egoistic impulses.This is a revised version of a paper read at the 1978 Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association in New York. I am grateful to Stanley Benn for prodding that prompted this essay and to Brian Barry, David Braybrooke, Joseph Carens, Russell Hardin, Martin Hollis and David Miller for advice on its improvement.     

儒家德育及对当代德育目标的启示

儒家历来强调德育的重要地位,本文探讨了儒家追求圣贤道德至善的德育目标,与法家避忌道德最坏的德育目标进行比较,进一步阐述了儒家德育目标对当代德育目标的一些启示。     

How the IMF lives with its conditionality

In spite of the intense controversy associated with the conditionality of its lending, IMF decisions are not voted upon but are the sense of the meeting of the Executive Directors as declared by the Managing Director. This unusual decisionmaking process is a substitute for secrecy of voting, which is not feasible within the IMF. It permits the wealthier countries to impose adjustment conditions without the appearance of the continual exercise of their majority power in the IMF. It permits the poorer, developing countries to agree or to disagree without taking an explicit position or to disagree with less danger to the favorable consideration of any future request which might be made.     

Transparency and political moral hazard

This paper analyzes the effects of asymmetric information on the public control of politicians in a world where the politicians’ pre-election promises are not credible. We study a model with identical politicians and a representative voter whose interests conflict with those of the politicians’. The voter’s decision to reelect the politician depends on both observable policies of the politician and the outcome of the unobservable policies. In equilibrium, either optimal decisions for the voter are not taken by the politician or if taken, the politician would extract more rent. In the latter case, politicians are also replaced more frequently.     

Citizenship and disability: incommensurable lives and well-being

This paper explores a new political consensus promoting ‘active’ as opposed to ‘passive’ conceptions of citizenship, emerging from the late 1970s onwards, and marking the post-settlement/post-Marshellesque era of the welfare state. Reflecting this consensus, the disability rights movement critiques ‘passive’ conceptions, which are, it is claimed, supported by the medical model of disability and so-called objective accounts of ‘special needs’ and well-being – that is, accounts provided by non-disabled professionals and carers who frequently diminish the rights of disabled people to live autonomously. In contrast, ‘active’ conceptions cohere with the social model of disability supporting the values of agency and self-determination – derived, in part, from equalizing opportunities for disabled people’s social participation compared with non-disabled people; but also by promoting subjective accounts of well-being which are often incomparable or incommensurable, both between persons and across one person’s life.