西方古典人文精神的两个基本问题

苏格拉底、柏拉图提出“人是什么?”奥古斯丁提出“我是谁?”这是西方古典人文精神的两个基本问题。古希腊人对“人是什么”问题的回答把理性提到至高无上的地位。奥古斯丁所问“我是谁?”使人脱离了自然秩序,把自己放在上帝面前。人为自己建立了一种新的关系,即人与上帝的关系。这种关系是爱的关系,爱即信。中世纪基督教对于“我是谁”的回答,把信仰提到了首位。     

倾听天命 敬畏自然——今天怎样重新认识孔子

作为儒家学派的创始人,孔子的学说对中国文化产生了深远的影响.在今天重新认识孔子,需要重回儒学源头,从"天人合一"的原问题出发,全面理解儒学中倾听天命和敬畏自然的观念,其核心是"仁"的思想.     

“一切为了人民”是保持共产党员先进性的根本

中国共产党的历史,就是一部为人民服务的历史,保持共产党员先进性必须永葆"一切为了人民"之宗旨,必须做"中国最广大人民的根本利益的忠实代表",要真正做到代表最广大人民的根本利益,就必须要协调好各方面的利益,落实好眼前的利益,处理好局部的利益,把对上与对下负责统一起来.     

医院未征得患者同意使用自费药纠纷初探——从社会法“倾斜保护”理论的视角出发

在基本医疗保险制度施行中,医保定点医院未征得患者同意使用自费药的行为构成对患者的一般侵权或侵权违约的竞合;针对医患双方实质地位的不平等,应运用民法及有关社会法的“倾斜保护”理论处理自费药纠纷且应授权执法者考虑个案的具体情况,决定医患双方间如何分担自费药费用,以实现公平正义的法律追求及维护医保患者的利益。     

行政诉讼中“和解协议”制度分析——制度比较和构建的视角

行政诉讼和解的目的在于节省司法资源,尽快结束诉讼,这符合构建和谐诉讼的理念。和解协议在性质上既具有行政法上的性质,又具有诉讼法上的性质。经确认的和解协议具有与生效判决相同的效力。当和解协议存在瑕疵时,结合我国行政诉讼法的立法现状,通过再审来启动救济程序。     

固视性质分析在视力客观评估中的法医学价值

正常眼注视物体时固视点位于黄斑中心凹,称作中心固视(中心视力);而当眼底疾病或损伤导致视力障碍达到一定程度时,中心固视功能丧失,固视点位于黄斑中心凹外,称作偏心固视(偏心视力)。中心固视眼黄斑中心凹机能可因疾病(损伤)减弱,但视力下降有限;偏心固视眼黄斑中心凹机能则丧失,视力下降明显。对固视性质的分析有助于客观预估视力水平,本文复习相关文献,对固视概念、固视检查方法进行综述,并着重阐述固视性质在视力评估中的应用,以期为法医学视功能评估提供参考。     

不是所有涉案查账都是司法会计鉴定

之所以说不是所有涉案查账都是司法会计鉴定,是由于两者具有对象与方法不同等实质性差异。然而,说两者不同,并非是对涉案查账的排斥,也并非说司法会计鉴定就不需要查账了。它们各有所长,也各有用武之地。     

“本性应得”与“不可侵犯”——评马里旦的权利学说

马里旦的权利学说回归到阿奎那的自然法学说,以上帝规定人的本性、本质——人的功能正常运行——为基点,引申出人的自然义务和自然权利。其理解、使用的"权利"概念既有与古典自然法学权利观——正当自由——相近的"不可侵犯"之义,又有源自潘恩的"应得"之义,有时又有具体利益事项之义。对马里旦权利学说的辨析有助于深化对权利概念的认识。     

Exploring the non-absolute nature of the right to data protection

In two recent judgements, the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that ‘The right to the protection of personal data is not, however, an absolute right, but must be considered in relation to its function in society’ (Eifert, para 48). This paper considers the ‘non-absolute’ nature of the right to data protection. Being a relatively new right, the boundaries of this right in the Charter are still somewhat unexplored. This paper considers five aspects that can be seen as setting boundaries to the otherwise absolute nature of the right to data protection: (a) consideration of the function of the right to data protection in society; (b) positive delimitations of the right that come from the formulation of the right (Article 8) in the Charter; (c) limitations on the right provided for in Article 52 of the Charter; (d) close connections with Article 7 of the Charter and Article 8 ECHR; and (e) the detailed provisions in current data protection secondary legislation and the future data protection regulation framework. Based on the reflections on each of these boundary-setting aspects, the paper argues that in spite of occasional vagueness and conflicting approaches of each of the aspects, understanding of the right to data protection has evolved since its first formulation in the Charter. There is a subtle and gradual distancing from the initial understanding of the close relationship with the right to private and family life. This gradual distancing is a positive development as the two have different foundations, scope and purposes. Yet it is only when both are taken together that the shared common objective of providing effective protection to citizens' personal and family life can be achieved.     

SOCIAL CONCERN AND CRIME: MOVING BEYOND THE ASSUMPTION OF SIMPLE SELF‐INTEREST

Most leading crime theories and crime‐control policies are based on the assumption that people are self‐interested. But recent work in a variety of fields has challenged this assumption, suggesting that people are both self‐interested and socially concerned. Social concern involves biologically based inclinations that sometimes lead people to give more consideration to others than to their own interests. These inclinations include caring about others, forming close ties to and cooperating with others, following certain moral intuitions, and conforming. This article describes the nature of and evidence for social concern, as well as the ways in which social factors shape social concern. The article then presents a theory of social concern and crime. Social concern has direct, indirect, mediating, and conditioning effects on crime. Although social concern generally reduces the likelihood of crime, it has little effect on or increases crime under certain conditions.