实践有效性视角下的工程伦理学探析
|
摘要
直到20世纪末,工程伦理学基本上是沿着职业伦理学的研究进路发展的,这种进路倾向于将已有的伦理观念标准化,并在此基础上思考如何将既定的职业道德规范应用到工程实践之中。这种研究进路在促进工程职业化、增强工程师责任感,以及唤起工程师职业自治意识等方面做出了重要贡献。然而,在技术科学化时代,这种研究进路面临诸多挑战。在当代技术社会背景下,原有的道德规范是否继续有效?能否继续对相关工程伦理问题做出开放、合理而有效的解释?原有的伦理观念体系能否继续保持对工程实践的有效影响?寻找这些问题的答案,使得工程伦理学必然走向对实践有效性的追求,而这种追求对工程伦理学发挥其社会影响有着极为重要的意义。
解释学、实践哲学和商谈伦理学等西方哲学流派的兴起,现代工程技术在评价导向、决策模式和风险治理等方面呈现的新特点,都对当代工程伦理学发展产生了深远影响。实践有效性视角下的工程伦理学研究,需要充分利用这些思想资源,针对当代工程实践的新情况、新特点,构建新的理论模型,以便对工程伦理的新问题提出合理解释,提供有效的应对策略。通过相关理论分析,本文提出了一种基于“解释”、“操作”和“对话”的工程伦理学实践有效性模型。
工程伦理学中的“解释”,是将伦理原则与工程实践具体情况相联系的过程。以往的职业伦理学研究进路坚持一种“职业视角”的解释模式,是在不改变已有伦理原则的前提下,针对职业需求解释具体的伦理问题,使解释成为已有职业伦理原则在工程实践中的应用。与之相应,STS学者提出“社会视角”的解释模式,更多考虑工程实践中伦理问题的社会文化背景,根据新情况、新问题提炼新的伦理原则。但这方面研究成果往往限于理论层面,对工程技术人员的直接影响效果不明显。通过对“职业视角”和“社会视角”两种模式的辩证分析,本文提出一种“适中”的解释模式,探讨既能够吸收两种模式的优点,又避免各自的局限性。在此基础上,强调工程伦理学解释“职业视角”与“社会视角”两种“视域”的融合。一方面,通过将既有伦理原则置于广阔的社会文化背景下加以审视,发现其存在的问题,进而做出符合“当下语境”的必要调整,提供伦理原则对现实问题的解释力；另一方面,需要将社会文化背景下的伦理解释联系具体工程职业实践,促进伦理学家对于工程实践具体情况的了解,增强伦理解释对于现实情形的指导意义。
工程伦理学中的“操作”,是将伦理原则和道德规范与工程实践具体环节相联系的过程。以往的职业伦理学研究进路注重伦理观念和规范对工程技术人员思想的影响,但对工程实践的具体操作过程关注不够,而工程伦理的实践有效性恰恰体现在具体操作过程之中。工程技术人员只有在具体操作中理解并落实相应的伦理要求,才能有效发挥工程伦理的社会作用。通过运用“游隐喻”对工程实践开展社会动力学分析可知,工程实践的“中游阶段(以工程设计为主的研发阶段)”是其中非常关键的操作环节,“中游调节”成为提高工程伦理学操作有效性的必经之路。以“中游调节”为基础,工程伦理学的操作首先通过对道德规范的互动解释,在工程实践的具体语境下“创造性”地落实道德规范,从而积极地影响工程实践。其次,重视道德直觉在工程实践中的引导作用。通过工程技术的深层体验与伦理原则的深度沉思,培养工程实践中的道德敏感性与道德想象力,从而在新的实践语境下做出灵敏而有效的道德决策,弥补道德规范在实践上的不足。第三,在伦理价值的互动解释基础上,运用“技术中介”作用机制,通过在“中游阶段”“嵌入”积极的伦理价值,使人工物在“下游”使用语境中发挥“物化道德”的“中介”作用,进一步扩展和完善工程伦理的社会影响。
无论“解释”还是“操作”,都不是一种“独白性”的活动,都需要发生在有效的“对话”之中。工程伦理学中的“对话”包括工程师、伦理学家、公众及其它利益相关者之间的对话,目的在于加深相互了解,提高“解释”和“操作”环节的准确性,协调相互的利益关系。然而,除了工程共同体成员之间在“解释”中的思想交流以及“操作”中的行为互动之外,工程伦理学的“对话”还包括社会意义上的对话。基于商谈伦理学,工程伦理学的对话包含三种不同层面的对话：职业、舆论与制度。职业层面的对话,致力于保证具体工程项目中利益分配的公正；舆论层面的对话,致力于从社会舆论层面对工程实践开展实时监督；制度层面的对话,致力于通过制度化途径为公众利益的有效实现提供制度保障。通过对话能够消除工程实践中的信息不对称,促使相关各方实际利益的矛盾得到公正合理的解决。
当前我国正处于经济和社会的转型阶段,工程建设中出现的很多重大现实问题都与工程伦理有关,工程伦理的实践有效性研究因而变得尤为重要和紧迫。在传统与现代性的张力之中,如何立足于现代工程技术的背景反思以往的工程伦理思想资源,建构符合我国当代实际情况的工程伦理体系,并真正有效地影响工程实践,实现工程伦理与工程实践在当代的“知行合一”,是值得深入探讨的重大理论课题。本文针对我国的实际情况提出了相应的对策性建议。
Until the late 20th century, engineering ethics was developed along with the professional ethics approach. This approach tends to standardize the ethical ideas in hand, and then considers that how to apply professional norms into engineering practice. This approach has made great contribution in promoting engineering professionalism, enhancing the responsible awareness of engineers, and evoking the consciousness of professional autonomy. However, as science and technology are closely interwoven with society today, this approach encounters certain challenges. For instance, within the sociotechnical contexts, will the given ethical principles continue to be effective and are still able to afford the open, appropriate, and effective interpretations to the engineering ethics issues? Will the existing system of ethical ideas still well keep their effective influences on engineering practice? These questions inevitably make the development trajectory of engineering ethics tend towards the pursuit of practical effectiveness, and such a pursuit attaches great importance to exert the social impacts of engineering ethics.
The rises of western philosophical schools as diverse as hermeneutics, practical philosophy, and discourse ethics, as well as the new characteristics unfolded in the assessment orientations, decision making patterns, and risk governance of engineering technologies, both profoundly influence the development of contemporary engineering ethics. Engineering ethics studies from the perspective of practical effectiveness requires adequately using these intellectual resources and building the new theoretical mode in accordance with the new situations and characters in contemporary engineering practice. Through related theoretical analyses, this paper proposes a practical-effective model in engineering ethics studies on the basis of'interpretation','operation', and'dialogue'
'Interpretation'in engineering ethics is a process to relate ethical principles to particular situations in engineering practice. Previous efforts in the professional ethics approach insists on an interpretive model from the professional perspective. This model interprets particular ethical issues in the light of not revising the principles and thus enables the interpretative process as the direct application. In contrast, an interpretive model with the social perspective more concerns about the sociocultural contexts and formulates new principles according to the new situations and problems. However, this model only limits at the theoretical level as well as does not have significant impacts on engineers and technologists. Through the dialectic analyses of the two models, this paper proposes a'middle-path'interpretive model which is able not to include the advantages but also prevent the limitations from both of the two models. Above all, it emphasizes the fusion of horizons between professional and social perspectives. On one hand, it can locate the existed ethical principles within the broadened sociocultural contexts and make necessary adjustments according to current circumstances. On the other hand, it relates ethical interpretation to particular engineering professional practice, make ethicists better understand the particular understandings on engineering practice, and thus improve the guiding significances of ethical principles on practical situations.
'Operation'in engineering ethics is to connect moral norms with the particular operations in engineering practice. The professional ethics approach emphasizes the impacts of ethical ideas and norms on the minds of engineers, and focuses on propaganda and education. However, it has not been paid enough attention on the particular procedures in engineering practice, and it is only in the particular procedures that the practical effectiveness in engineering ethics is able to be demonstrated. It is only engineers they understand and carry out the ethical requirements in concrete operations that the social functions of engineering ethics can be brought into play. This paper points out that, by using the'stream metaphor' to conduct social dynamic research on engineering practice, the'midstream stage (R&D process that engineering design is the principle activity)'is the crucial operation section which has become a necessary road to construct the operational effectiveness in engineering ethics. Based on the midstream modulation, operation in engineering ethics initially creatively practice moral norms in engineering practice through the interactive interpretation and thus has positive impacts on engineering practice. Secondly, it strengths the directing function played by moral intuition in engineering practice. Through deep reflections on engineering technologies and ethical principles, it aims at improving moral sensitivities and imaginations and make responsive and effective moral decisions in the new practical situations. Thirdly, based on the interactive interpretations on ethical values, by recognizing the mechanisms of technological mediation, integrating positive ethical values in the midstream stage is hoped to enable artifacts amplify their roles as'mediations'in the use contexts in the'downstream stage'. In this way, the social impacts of engineering ethics could be further extended and perfected.
Neither the'interpretation'nor the'operation'could be a'monologic'activity, and both of them are required to be conducted in the effective'dialogue'. The'dialogue' in engineering ethics evolves the effective dialogues between engineers, ethicists, and the public, and its aim is to deepen the understandings each other, improve the accuracies of interpretation and operation, and coordinate the beneficial interests. However, besides the thoughtful exchanges in interpretation and behavioral interactions in operation, "dialogue'in engineering ethics also includes the one in the societal sense. Based on discourse ethics, dialogue in engineering ethics can be divided into three types:professional, public, and institutional. Professional dialogue aims at ensuring the justice in distribution of interests in engineering projects, public dialogue deals with real-time monitoring on engineering practice, while institutional dialogue is devoted to offering institutional grantees for effectively realizing public interests. Dialogue can help to overcome the information asymmetry and deal with the interests conflicts in the justice way.
As China is now at the stage of economic and social transition, many realistic problems that emerge from engineering construction are associated with the issues in engineering ethics, and it makes the project practical effectiveness in engineering ethics more important and urgent. In the tension between tradition and modernity, how to reflect the intellectual resources in engineering ethics in the contexts of contemporary engineering technologies, establish the engineering ethics system concerning to our practical situations, give impacts on engineering practice effectively, and finally accomplish the'unity of knowledge and action' between ethics and engineering practice is a grand project that is worthwhile to be comprehensively discussed. In regard to the Chinese current situation, this paper also makes some related recommendations additionally.
解释学、实践哲学和商谈伦理学等西方哲学流派的兴起,现代工程技术在评价导向、决策模式和风险治理等方面呈现的新特点,都对当代工程伦理学发展产生了深远影响。实践有效性视角下的工程伦理学研究,需要充分利用这些思想资源,针对当代工程实践的新情况、新特点,构建新的理论模型,以便对工程伦理的新问题提出合理解释,提供有效的应对策略。通过相关理论分析,本文提出了一种基于“解释”、“操作”和“对话”的工程伦理学实践有效性模型。
工程伦理学中的“解释”,是将伦理原则与工程实践具体情况相联系的过程。以往的职业伦理学研究进路坚持一种“职业视角”的解释模式,是在不改变已有伦理原则的前提下,针对职业需求解释具体的伦理问题,使解释成为已有职业伦理原则在工程实践中的应用。与之相应,STS学者提出“社会视角”的解释模式,更多考虑工程实践中伦理问题的社会文化背景,根据新情况、新问题提炼新的伦理原则。但这方面研究成果往往限于理论层面,对工程技术人员的直接影响效果不明显。通过对“职业视角”和“社会视角”两种模式的辩证分析,本文提出一种“适中”的解释模式,探讨既能够吸收两种模式的优点,又避免各自的局限性。在此基础上,强调工程伦理学解释“职业视角”与“社会视角”两种“视域”的融合。一方面,通过将既有伦理原则置于广阔的社会文化背景下加以审视,发现其存在的问题,进而做出符合“当下语境”的必要调整,提供伦理原则对现实问题的解释力；另一方面,需要将社会文化背景下的伦理解释联系具体工程职业实践,促进伦理学家对于工程实践具体情况的了解,增强伦理解释对于现实情形的指导意义。
工程伦理学中的“操作”,是将伦理原则和道德规范与工程实践具体环节相联系的过程。以往的职业伦理学研究进路注重伦理观念和规范对工程技术人员思想的影响,但对工程实践的具体操作过程关注不够,而工程伦理的实践有效性恰恰体现在具体操作过程之中。工程技术人员只有在具体操作中理解并落实相应的伦理要求,才能有效发挥工程伦理的社会作用。通过运用“游隐喻”对工程实践开展社会动力学分析可知,工程实践的“中游阶段(以工程设计为主的研发阶段)”是其中非常关键的操作环节,“中游调节”成为提高工程伦理学操作有效性的必经之路。以“中游调节”为基础,工程伦理学的操作首先通过对道德规范的互动解释,在工程实践的具体语境下“创造性”地落实道德规范,从而积极地影响工程实践。其次,重视道德直觉在工程实践中的引导作用。通过工程技术的深层体验与伦理原则的深度沉思,培养工程实践中的道德敏感性与道德想象力,从而在新的实践语境下做出灵敏而有效的道德决策,弥补道德规范在实践上的不足。第三,在伦理价值的互动解释基础上,运用“技术中介”作用机制,通过在“中游阶段”“嵌入”积极的伦理价值,使人工物在“下游”使用语境中发挥“物化道德”的“中介”作用,进一步扩展和完善工程伦理的社会影响。
无论“解释”还是“操作”,都不是一种“独白性”的活动,都需要发生在有效的“对话”之中。工程伦理学中的“对话”包括工程师、伦理学家、公众及其它利益相关者之间的对话,目的在于加深相互了解,提高“解释”和“操作”环节的准确性,协调相互的利益关系。然而,除了工程共同体成员之间在“解释”中的思想交流以及“操作”中的行为互动之外,工程伦理学的“对话”还包括社会意义上的对话。基于商谈伦理学,工程伦理学的对话包含三种不同层面的对话：职业、舆论与制度。职业层面的对话,致力于保证具体工程项目中利益分配的公正；舆论层面的对话,致力于从社会舆论层面对工程实践开展实时监督；制度层面的对话,致力于通过制度化途径为公众利益的有效实现提供制度保障。通过对话能够消除工程实践中的信息不对称,促使相关各方实际利益的矛盾得到公正合理的解决。
当前我国正处于经济和社会的转型阶段,工程建设中出现的很多重大现实问题都与工程伦理有关,工程伦理的实践有效性研究因而变得尤为重要和紧迫。在传统与现代性的张力之中,如何立足于现代工程技术的背景反思以往的工程伦理思想资源,建构符合我国当代实际情况的工程伦理体系,并真正有效地影响工程实践,实现工程伦理与工程实践在当代的“知行合一”,是值得深入探讨的重大理论课题。本文针对我国的实际情况提出了相应的对策性建议。
Until the late 20th century, engineering ethics was developed along with the professional ethics approach. This approach tends to standardize the ethical ideas in hand, and then considers that how to apply professional norms into engineering practice. This approach has made great contribution in promoting engineering professionalism, enhancing the responsible awareness of engineers, and evoking the consciousness of professional autonomy. However, as science and technology are closely interwoven with society today, this approach encounters certain challenges. For instance, within the sociotechnical contexts, will the given ethical principles continue to be effective and are still able to afford the open, appropriate, and effective interpretations to the engineering ethics issues? Will the existing system of ethical ideas still well keep their effective influences on engineering practice? These questions inevitably make the development trajectory of engineering ethics tend towards the pursuit of practical effectiveness, and such a pursuit attaches great importance to exert the social impacts of engineering ethics.
The rises of western philosophical schools as diverse as hermeneutics, practical philosophy, and discourse ethics, as well as the new characteristics unfolded in the assessment orientations, decision making patterns, and risk governance of engineering technologies, both profoundly influence the development of contemporary engineering ethics. Engineering ethics studies from the perspective of practical effectiveness requires adequately using these intellectual resources and building the new theoretical mode in accordance with the new situations and characters in contemporary engineering practice. Through related theoretical analyses, this paper proposes a practical-effective model in engineering ethics studies on the basis of'interpretation','operation', and'dialogue'
'Interpretation'in engineering ethics is a process to relate ethical principles to particular situations in engineering practice. Previous efforts in the professional ethics approach insists on an interpretive model from the professional perspective. This model interprets particular ethical issues in the light of not revising the principles and thus enables the interpretative process as the direct application. In contrast, an interpretive model with the social perspective more concerns about the sociocultural contexts and formulates new principles according to the new situations and problems. However, this model only limits at the theoretical level as well as does not have significant impacts on engineers and technologists. Through the dialectic analyses of the two models, this paper proposes a'middle-path'interpretive model which is able not to include the advantages but also prevent the limitations from both of the two models. Above all, it emphasizes the fusion of horizons between professional and social perspectives. On one hand, it can locate the existed ethical principles within the broadened sociocultural contexts and make necessary adjustments according to current circumstances. On the other hand, it relates ethical interpretation to particular engineering professional practice, make ethicists better understand the particular understandings on engineering practice, and thus improve the guiding significances of ethical principles on practical situations.
'Operation'in engineering ethics is to connect moral norms with the particular operations in engineering practice. The professional ethics approach emphasizes the impacts of ethical ideas and norms on the minds of engineers, and focuses on propaganda and education. However, it has not been paid enough attention on the particular procedures in engineering practice, and it is only in the particular procedures that the practical effectiveness in engineering ethics is able to be demonstrated. It is only engineers they understand and carry out the ethical requirements in concrete operations that the social functions of engineering ethics can be brought into play. This paper points out that, by using the'stream metaphor' to conduct social dynamic research on engineering practice, the'midstream stage (R&D process that engineering design is the principle activity)'is the crucial operation section which has become a necessary road to construct the operational effectiveness in engineering ethics. Based on the midstream modulation, operation in engineering ethics initially creatively practice moral norms in engineering practice through the interactive interpretation and thus has positive impacts on engineering practice. Secondly, it strengths the directing function played by moral intuition in engineering practice. Through deep reflections on engineering technologies and ethical principles, it aims at improving moral sensitivities and imaginations and make responsive and effective moral decisions in the new practical situations. Thirdly, based on the interactive interpretations on ethical values, by recognizing the mechanisms of technological mediation, integrating positive ethical values in the midstream stage is hoped to enable artifacts amplify their roles as'mediations'in the use contexts in the'downstream stage'. In this way, the social impacts of engineering ethics could be further extended and perfected.
Neither the'interpretation'nor the'operation'could be a'monologic'activity, and both of them are required to be conducted in the effective'dialogue'. The'dialogue' in engineering ethics evolves the effective dialogues between engineers, ethicists, and the public, and its aim is to deepen the understandings each other, improve the accuracies of interpretation and operation, and coordinate the beneficial interests. However, besides the thoughtful exchanges in interpretation and behavioral interactions in operation, "dialogue'in engineering ethics also includes the one in the societal sense. Based on discourse ethics, dialogue in engineering ethics can be divided into three types:professional, public, and institutional. Professional dialogue aims at ensuring the justice in distribution of interests in engineering projects, public dialogue deals with real-time monitoring on engineering practice, while institutional dialogue is devoted to offering institutional grantees for effectively realizing public interests. Dialogue can help to overcome the information asymmetry and deal with the interests conflicts in the justice way.
As China is now at the stage of economic and social transition, many realistic problems that emerge from engineering construction are associated with the issues in engineering ethics, and it makes the project practical effectiveness in engineering ethics more important and urgent. In the tension between tradition and modernity, how to reflect the intellectual resources in engineering ethics in the contexts of contemporary engineering technologies, establish the engineering ethics system concerning to our practical situations, give impacts on engineering practice effectively, and finally accomplish the'unity of knowledge and action' between ethics and engineering practice is a grand project that is worthwhile to be comprehensively discussed. In regard to the Chinese current situation, this paper also makes some related recommendations additionally.
引文
[1][德]伽德默尔,杜特(著),金惠敏(译).解释学、美学、实践哲学：伽达默尔与杜特对谈录[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.
[2][美]西奥多·夏兹金.中文版序言[M]//[美]西奥多·夏兹金,[美]卡琳·诺尔·塞蒂纳,[德]埃克·冯·萨维尼(编).柯文,石诚(译).当代理论的实践转向.苏州：苏州大学出版社,2010：1-3.
[3][美]约瑟夫·劳斯(著).戴建平(译).涉入科学：如何从哲学上理解科学实践[M].苏州：苏州大学出版社,2010.
[4]Martin M, Schinzinger R. Ethics in engineering [M]. New York:McGraw-Hill,2004.
[5]Law J. Technology and heterogeneous engineering:the case of Portuguese expansion [M]. //Bi jker W, Hughes T, Pinch T. Eds. The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge:MIT Press,1987:111-134.
[6]Cua A. Emergence of the History of Chinese philosophy [M]//Mou B. Ed. Comparative approaches to Chinese philosophy. Burlington, Ashgate Publishing Company,2003:3-30.
[7]张汝伦.实践哲学：中国古代哲学的基本特质[N].文汇报,2004,07.25.
[8]约瑟夫·劳斯著,盛晓明等译.知识与权力：走向科学的政治哲学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2004.
[9]吴彤.复归科学实践——一种科学哲学的新反思[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2010.
[10]孟强.从表象到介入——科学实践的哲学研究[D].杭州：浙江大学,2006.
[11]蒋劲松,吴彤,王巍.科学实践哲学的新视野[M].呼和浩特：内蒙古人民出版社,2006.
[12]陈玉林.技术叙事研究——技术实践哲学的研究路径[J].科学技术哲学研究,2010,27(4)：65-70.
[13]王大洲,关士续.技术哲学、技术实践与技术理性[J].哲学研究,2004,(11)：55-60.
[14]Li B. The rise of philosophy of engineering in the east and the west [M]//van de Poel I, Goldberg D. Philosophy and Engineering:An Emerging Agenda. Dordrecht:Springer Science+Buiness Media B.V.,2010:31-40.
[15]Sinclair G. A call for philosophy of engineering [J]. Technology and Culture,1977, 18 (4):685-689.
[16]Goldman S, Cutcliffe S. Foreword [M]//Durbin P. Ed. Critical Perspectives on Nonacademic Science and Engineering. Bethlehem:Lehigh University Press,1991:7-8.
[17]路易斯·L·布希亚瑞利(著),安维复等(译).工程哲学[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社,2008.
[18]文森蒂.工程知识、设计类型与等级层次：进一步思考工程师知道什么[M]//张华夏,张志林.技术解释研究.北京：科学出版社,2005：119-129.
[19]Mitcham C. Engineering ethics in historical perspective and as an imperative in design [M]//Mitcham C. Thinking Ethics in Technology:Hennebach Lectures and Papers (1995-1996). Golden:Colorado School of Mines Press,1997:123-154.
[20]一个典型的实例参见兰登·温纳(Langdon Winner)在其所著《人工物有政治么?》一文中,对纽约长岛公园大道上的天桥所蕴含的殖民主义价值的分析。
[21]李伯聪.工程哲学引论——我造物故我在[M].郑州：大象出版社,2002.
[22]李伯聪.工程共同体中的工人——“工程共同体”研究之一[J].自然辩证法通讯,2005,27(02)：64-69.
[23]傅志寰.我国铁路提速工程的哲学思考[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007,37(03)：5-13.
[24]沈珠江.工程哲学就是发展哲学——一个工程师眼中的工程哲学[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006,21(02)：117-121.
[25]陆佑楣.从哲学高度不断认识水电工程[J].中国三峡建设,2005,(02)：4-8.
[26]Didier C. Engineering ethics [M]//Olsen J, Pedersen S, Hendricks V. Eds. A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology. Malden:Wiley-Blackwell,2009:426-432.
[27]Conlon E, Zandvoort H. Broadening ethics teaching in engineering:beyond the individualistic approach [J/OL]. Science and Engineering Ethics (2010-05-14) [2011-01-03] http://www. springerlink. com/content/3632826773064307/fulltext.pdf
[28]Son W. Philosophy of technology and macro-ethics in engineering [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2008,14:405-415.
[29]van de Poel I, Verbeek P. Ethics and engineering design [J]. Science, Technology, & Human Values,2006,31(03):223-236.
[30]Herkert J. Future directions in engineering ethics research:microethics, macroethics and the role of professional societies [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2001,07: 403-414.
[31]Kline R. Research ethics, engineering ethics, and science and technology studies [M]. //Mitcham C. Ed. Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Detroit:Macmillan Reference,2005:ⅹⅹⅹⅴ-xli.
[32]张恒力,胡新和.问题与建制：中国工程伦理学述评[M]//刘则渊,王续琨,王前主编.工程·技术·哲学：中国技术哲学年鉴(2006-2007).大连：大连理工大学出版社,2008：128-136.
[33]李世新.工程伦理学即其若干主要问题的研究[D].北京：中国社会科学院研究生院,2003.
[34]唐丽.美国工程伦理研究[M].沈阳：东北大学出版社,2007.
[35]李世新.工程伦理学的研究范式[J].北京理工大学学报(社会科学版),2010,12(3)：101-104.
[36]段新明.工程伦理教育的三个价值向度[J].自然辩证法研究,2010,26(3)：71-75.
[37]张玲.“以人为本”的工程伦理意蕴[J].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009,(6)：14-15.
[38]郭飞,王续刚.中国的工程伦理建设：背景、目标和对策[J].华中科技大学学报(社会科学版),2009,23(4)：116-121.
[39]参见唐丽.美国工程伦理研究[M].沈阳：东北大学出版社,2007;唐丽,陈凡.美国工程伦理学：一种社会学分析[J].东北大学学报(社会科学版),2008,10(1)：11-16;仲伟佳,丛杭青.美国工程伦理的历史与启示[J].高等工程教育研究,2008,(4)：34-37.
[40]唐丽,田鹏颖.日本工程伦理思想探略[J].辽东学院学报(社会科学版),2007,9(1)：29-32.
[41]张恒力.工程伦理规范的标准与方法——以巴伦西亚工业工程师协会伦理规范为例[J].自然辩证法通讯,2010,32(2)：21-25.
[42]万长松.苏俄工程伦理学述评[J].燕山大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,8(1)：133-138.
[43]Smith D. Phenomenology [M/OL] Zalta E. ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2008-06-28) [2011-01-09]. http://plato.stanford. edu/archives/sum2009/entries/phenomenology/
[44]Gjescdal K, Ramberg B. Hermeneutics [M/OL] Zalta E. ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2005-11-09) [2011-01-09]. http://plato. stanford. edu/archives/sum2009/entries/hermeneutics/
[45]这种道德推理(moral reasoning)模式,倾向于将伦理原则与规范看成本身并不存在问题的手段、工具或技术。在这一模式下,伦理学很难充分发挥促进人道德行为向善、促进道德知识增长的实践哲学的作用,而是成为解决伦理问题的原则与规范的修辞学,这里伦理原则与规范使用的效率决定了道德推理的优劣。
[46]van Tongeren P. Ethics, tradition, and hermeneutics [J]. Ethical Perspectives,1996, 3(3):175-183.
[47]Verstraeten J. Narrative and hermeneutics in applied ethics:some introductory considerations [J]. Ethical Perspectives,1994,1(1):51-56.
[48][德]海德格尔(著),陈嘉映等(译).存在与时间[M].北京：三联书店,2000.
[49]Verbeek P. Materializing morality:design ethics and technological mediation[J]. Science, Technology & Human Values,2006,31(3):361-380.
[50]Bucciarelli L. Ethics and engineering education [J]. European Journal of Engineering Education,2008,33(2):141-149.
[51]Thompson D. A mission of ethics [R/OL]//Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics. Ethics at Harvard (1987-2007). Cambridge:Harvard University,2007 [2011,01,29] http://www. ethics. harvard. edu/images/resources/pdfs/20threport. pdf
[52]LaFollette H. Pragmatic ethics [M]//LaFollette H. Ed. Blackwell guide to ethical theory. Malden:Wiley-Blackwell,2000:414-418.
[53]部分时候,米切姆也用"take more into account"指代"plus respicere"。
[54]Ess C. Discourse ethics [M]//Mitcham C. Ed. Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics (vol.2). Detroit:USA,2005:534.
[55]Ott K. The framework:discourse ethics [M]//Ott P, Thapa P. Eds. Greifswald's environmental ethics:from the work of the Michael Otto professorship at Ernst Moritz Arndt University 1997-2002. Greifswald:Steinbecker,2003:17.
[56]在我国学界,先后出现过两本以“技术解释”为题的著作。一本为张华夏与张志林所著《技术解释研究》(科学出版社2005年出版)；另一本为赵乐静所著《技术解释学》(科学出版社2009年出版)。两种“解释”分别代表着自然科学与人文社会科学的两种不同方法：即自然科学中的“解释”(explanation,也有译为“说明”)以及人文社会科学中的“理解”(understand)(参见：陈嘉明等著.科学解释与人文理解[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2010)。前者中的解释通常译为explanation,后者中的解释通常被译为hermeneutics。这里的解释主要是指前者,即从认识论与方法论视角对技术结构与功能的陈述(包括技术行动目标陈述、作为达到目标的手段的技术行为陈述、行动规则陈述、技术客体的结构陈述与功能陈述、技术客体的运行原理陈述等)(参见：张华夏,张志林.技术解释研究[M].北京：科学出版社,2005)。
[57]Lozano J. Developing an ethical code for engineers:the discursive approach [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2006,12(2):245-256.
[58]Phadke R. People's science in action:the politics of protest and knowledge brokering in India [M]//Johnson D, Wetmore J. Eds. Technology and society:building our sociotechnical future. Cambridge:MIT Press,2009:499-513.
[59]Winner L. Upon opening the black box and finding it empty:social constructivism and the philosophy of technology [J]. Science, Technology & Human Values,1993,18 (3): 362-378.
[60]Hauser-Kastenberg G, Kastenberg W, Norris D. Towards emergent ethical action and the culture of engineering [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2003,9(3):377-387.
[61]Schot J. Constructive technology assessment [M]//Mitcham C. Ed. Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics. Detroit:Macmillan Reference,2005:423-426.
[62][德]罗波尔.工程伦理学需要制度的支持[M]//王国豫,刘则渊.主编.科学技术伦理的跨文化对话.北京：科学出版社,2009：157-163.
[63]Grunwald A. Technology assessment or ethics of technology? reflections on technology development between social sciences and philosophy [J]. Ethical Perspectives,1999, 6(2):170.
[64]Gouran D. Making decisions in groups [M]. Glenview:Scott, Foresman and Company,1982.
[65]Schuuribiers D, Fisher E. Lab-scale intervention [J]. EMBO Report,2009,10(5): 424-427.
[66]Mitcham C. Technology and ethics:from expertise to participation [M]//Mitcham C. Thinking Ethics in Technology:Hennebach Lectures and Papers (1995-1996). Golden: Colorado School of Mines Press,1997:17-27.
[67]Devon R. Towards a social ethics of technology:a research prospect [J]. Techne,2007, 11(1).
[68]Mitcham C. Co-responsibility for research integrity [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2003,9(2):273-290.
[69]Coeckelbergh M, Wachers G. Imagination, distributed responsibility, and vulnerable technological systems:the case of Snorre A [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2007, 13 (2):235-248.
[70][美]查尔斯·哈里斯等著,丛杭青等译.工程伦理：概念与案例[M].北京：北京理工大学出版社,2006.
[71][德]乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会：走向另一种现代性[M].南京：译林出版社,2004.
[72]王前,朱勤,李艺芸.纳米技术风险管理的哲学思考[J].科学通报,2011,56(2)：135-141.
[73]俞可平.引论：治理与善治[M]//俞可平主编.治理与善治.北京：社会科学文献出版社,2000：8.
[74]Harris C, Prichard M, Rabins M. Engineering ethics:concepts and cases (4th edition) M.Belmont:Wadsworth,2009.
[75]Perrow C. Normal accidents:living with high-risk technologies. Princeton:Princeton University Press,1999.
[76]Harris C. The good engineer:giving virtue its due in engineering ethics [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2008,14:153-164.
[77][法]保罗·利科(著),莫伟民(译).解释的冲突：解释学文集[M].北京：商务印书馆,2008.
[78]马茨·艾尔维森,卡伊·舍尔德贝里(著),陈仁仁(译).质性研究的理论视角：一种反身性的方法论[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2009.
[79]Davis M. Engineering ethics, individuals, and organizations [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2006,12:223-231.
[80]Harris C, Pritchard M, Rabins M. Engineering ethics:overview [M].//Mitcham C. Ed. Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Detroit:Macmillan Reference,2005: 625-632.
[81]Chang H. Operationalism [M/OL] Zalta E. ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2009-07-16) [2011-03-13]. http://plato. stanford. edu/archives/sum2009/entries/operationalism/
[82]Bridgman P. The logic of modern physics [M]. New York:Macmillan,1927.
[83]罗嘉昌.操作主义[M]//于光远主编.自然辩证法百科全书.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1995：21.
[84]Fisher E, Mahajan R, Mitcham C. Midstream modulation of technology:governance from within [J]. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society,2006,26 (06):485-496.
[85]Durbin P. Social Responsibility in Science, Technology and Medicine [M]. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press,1992.
[86][英]Finlayson J G(著),邵志军(译).哈贝马斯[M].南京：译林出版社,2010.
[87]陈嘉明等.科学解释与人文理解[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2010.
[88]李伯聪.工程与伦理的互渗与对话——再谈关于工程伦理学的若干问题[J].华中科技大学学报(社会科学版),2006,20(4)：71-72.
[89]Mitcham C. The importance of philosophy to engineering [J]. Teoreama:Revista Internacional de filosofia,1998,17 (3). Bucciarelli L. Engineering Philosophy. Amsterdam:IOS Press,2003.
[90]Mitcham C. Applied ethics and its problems:a plea for the centrality of technology [M]//Mitcham C. Thinking Ethics in Technology:Hennebach Lectures and Papers (1995-1996). Golden:Colorado School of Mines Press,1997:155-169.
[91][德]汉斯-格奥尔格·加达默尔(著),夏镇平,宋建平(译).哲学解释学[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2004.
[92][美]维西林,冈恩(著),吴晓东,翁端(译).工程、伦理与环境[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003.
[93][德]汉斯-格奥尔格·伽达默尔(著),洪汉鼎(译).真理与方法——哲学诠释学的基本特征[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.
[94]Hansson S. Safety engineering:practice [M]//Mitcham C. Ed. Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics (vol.4). Detroit:USA,2005:1674-1675.
[95]Mitcham C, Duval S. Engineering ethics [M]. Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall:2000.
[96][美]迈克·W.马丁,罗兰·辛津格著,李世新译.工程伦理学[M].北京：首都师范大学出版社,2010.
[97]Huff C, Frey W. Moral pedagogy and practical ethics [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2005,11(3):389-408.
[98]Mitcham C. Thinking through technology:the path between engineering and philosophy [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1994.
[99][美]丹尼尔·L·巴布科克,露西·C·莫尔斯著.金永红,奚玉芹译.工程技术管理学[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[100]Herkert J. Engineering ethics and public policy [M]//Herkert J, ed. Social, ethical, and policy implications of engineering [M]. Piscataway:IEEE Press,2000:145-146.
[101]Herkert J. Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving:microethics and macroethics in engineering [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2005,11(3): 373-385.
[102]朱勤,王前.社会技术系统论视角下的工程伦理学研究[J].道德与文明,2010,(6)：119-124.
[103]Colby A, Sullivan W. Teaching ethics in undergraduate engineering education [J]. Journal of Engineering Education,2008,97(3):327-338.
[104]Kline R. Using history & sociology to teach engineering ethics [J]. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, winter 2001/2002:13-20.
[105][美]诺曼·K·邓金著,周勇译.解释性交往行动主义：个人经历的叙事、倾听与理解[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2004.
[106]Lynch W, Kline R. Engineering practice and engineering ethics [J]. Science, Technology & Human Values,2000,25(2):195-225.
[107]Kline R. Engineering case studies:bridging micro and macro ethics [J]. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, winter 2010:16-19.
[108]Johnson D, Miller K. Computer ethics:analyzing information technology [M]. Upper Saddle River:Prentice Hall,2009.
[109][古希腊]亚里士多德著,苗力田译.尼各马科伦理学[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[110][美]史蒂文·卢坡尔著,陈燕译.伦理学导论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[111][美]休·拉福莱特主编,龚群主译.伦理学理论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[112]Davis M. Explaining wrongdoing [J]. Journal of Social Philosophy,1989,20(1-2): 74-90.
[113]朱勤.米切姆工程设计伦理思想评析[J].道德与文明,2009,(1)：88-92.
[114]Bowen W. Engineering ethics:outline of an aspirational approach [M]. London: Springer-Verlag,2009.
[115][美]帕特里夏·奥坦伯德·约翰逊著,何卫平译.伽达默尔[M].北京：中华书局,2003.
[116][德]汉斯-格奥尔格·加达默尔著,洪汉鼎译.真理与方法：哲学诠释学的基本特征(上卷).上海：上海译文出版社,2004.
[117]Doorn N, Fahlquist J. Responsibility in engineering:toward a new role for engineering ethicists [J]. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society,2010,30(3):222-230.
[118]设计师通过天桥的高度设计,通过限定通往大桥的车辆而限定了通往长岛的人群。大桥的高度很低,只能允许私人驾驶的汽车的通过,而对于乘坐双层巴士的低收入人群往往因为高度的限制而无法通过。
[119][德]汉斯-格奥尔格·加达默尔著,洪汉鼎译.真理与方法：哲学诠释学的基本特征(下卷).上海：上海译文出版社,2004.
[120]Unger S. Controlling technology:ethics and the responsible engineer (2nd edition) [M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,1994.
[121]以(美国)全国职业工程师学会(NSPE)工程师伦理守则为例：在6基本准则中,第一条是“将公众的安全、健康和福利放在首位”。
[122]这句话的英文原文为：take off your engineering hat and put on his management hat。
[123]Vaughan D. Theorizing disaster:analogy, historical ethnography, and the Challenger accident [J]. Ethnography,2004,5(3):315-347.
[124]Vaughan D. History as a cause:Columbia and Challenger [M]//CAIB Report Volumel, 2003:195-201.
[125]Murata J. From Challenger to Columbia:what lessons can we learn from the report of the Columbia accident investigation board for engineering ethics [J]? Techne,2006, 10 (1):35-53.
[126]马克思恩格斯全集(第三卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,2008.
[127]徐长山.工程十论——关于工程的哲学探讨[M].西安：西南交通大学出版社,2010.
[128]van de Poel I, Royakkers L. Ethics, technology, and engineering:an introduction [M]. Malden:Wiley-Blackwell,2011.
[129]朱勤.技术中介理论：一种现象学的技术伦理学思路[J].科学技术哲学研究,2010,27(1)：101-106.
[130]McCarthy N. Engineering:a beginner's guide [M]. Oxford:Oneworld Publications, 2009.
[131]Collingridge D. Social control of technology [M]. London:Frances Pinter,1980.
[132]Liebert W, Schmidt J. Collingridge's dilemma and technoscience:an attempt to provide a clarification from the perspective of the philosophy of science [J]. Poiesis & Prax: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science,2010,7(1-2): 55-71.
[133]Durbin P. Activist philosophy of technology essays (1989-1999) [EB/OL]. [2011,04,23]. www. udel.edu/Philosophy/sites/pd/files/activistl. pdf.
[134]孟强.从表象到介入：科学实践的哲学研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008.
[135]海德格尔著,孙周兴选编.《海德格尔选集(下)》.上海：上海三联书店,1999.
[136][美]斯蒂文·费什米尔著,徐鹏,马如俊译.杜威与道德想象力：伦理学中的实用主义[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
[137]Lichtenberg J. What are codes of ethics for? [M]//Coady M, Block S. eds. Codes of ethics and the professions. Melbourne:Melbourne University Press,1996:95.
[138][美]克里斯蒂娜·科尔斯戈德著,杨顺利译.规范性的来源[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2010.
[139]转引自晁乐红.中庸与中道：先秦儒家与亚里士多德思想比较研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2010.
[140]就道德规范的知识而言,我们知道需要尊重人(包括尸体),同时我们也知道工程实践的目的是为了给人类带来福利(包括挽救更多的人的生命)。然而,如何在两者之间正确地做事而有效地落实相关道德规范,却是真正的困难所在。
[141][美]玛莎·纳斯鲍姆著,徐向东,陆萌译.善的脆弱性：古希腊悲剧和哲学中的运气与伦理[M].南京：译林出版社,2007.
[142]Martin M. Meaningful Work [M]. New York:Oxford University Press,2000.
[143]Luegenbiehl H. Teaching engineering ethics across national borders [C]//American Society for Engineering Education. Global Issues in Engineering Education.2003 Annual Meeting of ASEE, June 22-25,2003, Nashville, Tennessee:ASEE, c2003.
[144][美]杰夫·麦克马汉.道德直觉[M]//[美]休·拉福莱特主编,龚群主译.伦理学理论.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[145][美]托德·莱肯(著),陶秀璈等译,张弛泽.造就道德：伦理学理论的实用主义重构[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
[146]王前.技术现代化的文化制约[M].沈阳：东北大学出版社,2002.
[147]阿里克奇除了使用script之外,同时还使用scenario。事实上,两者的意义是相同的,彼此可以视为是同义语,都是意指(电影、戏剧等的)剧情说明、脚本、 (行动的)方案、纲要等。
[148]Akrich M. The de-scription of technological objects [M]//Bi jker W, Law J. ed. Shaping technology/building society:studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge:MIT Press, 1992:208.
[149]Latour B. Where are the missing masses:the sociology of a few mundane artifacts [M]//Bi jker W, Law J. ed. Shaping technology/building society:studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge:MIT Press,1992:232.
[150]Cooper T. Hierarchy, virtue, and the practice of public administration:a perspective for normative ethics [J]. Public Administration Review,1987,47(4):320-328.
[151]赵乐静.技术解释学[M].北京：科学出版社,2009.
[152][美]约翰·罗尔斯著,何怀宏等译.正义论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2009.
[153]李伯聪.工程伦理学的若干理论问题[J].哲学研究,2006,(4)：97.
[154]Friedman A, Miles S. Stakeholders:theory and practice[M]. Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press,2006.
[155]Freeman R. Strategic management:a stakeholder approach [M]. Boston:Pitman Press, 1984.
[156]王前.中西文化比较概论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[157]孟子·梁惠王上
[158]孟子·公孙丑
[159]Alexander T. John Dewey and the moral imagination:beyond Putnan and Rorty toward a postmodern ethics [J]. Transition of the Charles S. Peirce society,1990,3:384-386.(转引自[美]斯蒂文·费什米尔著,徐鹏,马如俊译.杜威与道德想象力：伦理学中的实用主义[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010：102.)
[160]Bunnin N, Yu J. The Blackwell dictionary of Western philosophy [M]. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell,2004.
[161]前两者致力于将决疑法应用于生物伦理学与医学伦理学的实践,后两者注重将决疑法应用于工程伦理学的实践操作。
[162]Miller R. Casuistry and modern ethics:a poetics of practical reasoning [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1996.
[163]这一阶段需要不断地运用类比方法,乔森这一阶段称之为“道德分类学(moral taxonomy) "。
[164][美]菲利普·赫梅林斯基著,朱勤译.案例分析与工程伦理：当代国际化职业实践的传统资源[M]//安延明,王前主编.应用伦理学的新视野——2007年“科技伦理与职业伦理”国际学术研讨会文集.北京：人民出版社,2008：163.
[165]Fogg B. Persuasive technology:using computers to change what we think and do [M]. New York:Morgan Kaufmann,2002.
[166]Lau J, Chan J. Reflective equilibrium [EB/OL]. (2004,05,11) [2011,08,12] http://philosophy, hku. hk/think/value/reflect. php
[167]Mitcham C, Munoz D. Humanitarian engineering [M]. Breinigsville:Morgan & Claypool Publishers,2010.
[168]Humanitarian Engineering Program. What is humanitarian engineering? [EB/OL] (2011, 07,20) [2011,08,18] http://http://humanitarian. mines.edu/
[169]Friedman B. Value-sensitive design:a research agenda for information technology [EB/OL]. (1999,08,23) [2011,08,19] http://www. vsdesign. org/outreach/pdf/friedman99VSD_Research_Agenda. pdf
[170]Friedman B etl al. Value senstive design and information system [M]//Zhang P, Galletta D, eds. Human-computer interaction in management systems:foundations. New York:M. E. Sharpe,2006:348-372.
[171]Van den Hoven J, Manders-Huits N. Value-sensitive design [M]//Olsen J, Pedersen S, Hendricks V. Eds. A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell,2009:477-480.
[172]Friedman B et al. Informed consent in the Mozilla browser:implementing value-sensitive design [C]//Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,2002, University of Hawaii. IEEE.
[173][荷]西斯·哈姆林克著,李世新译.赛博空间伦理学[M].北京：首都师范大学出版社,2010.
[174]Shaw G B. The doctor's dilemma [M]//Shaw B. Six plays. New York:Dodd Mead,1941.
[175]The McGraw Hill encyclopedia of science and technology (vol.6) [M]. New York: McGraw-Hill,1997.
[176]Guston D, Sarewitz D. Real-time technology assessment [J]. Techology in society,2002, 24 (1):93-109.
[177]Habermas J. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge:MIT Press,1993.
[178]舒红跃.技术与生活世界[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2006.
[179]冈特·绍伊博尔德.海德格尔分析新时代的技术[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1993.
[180]李伯聪.工程共同体研究和工程社会学的开拓——“工程共同体”研究之三[J].自然辨证法通讯,2008,30(1)：63-68.
[181]王前,朱勤.工人——工程共同体构成分析之二[M]//李伯聪等.工程社会学导论：工程共同体研究.杭州：浙江大学出版社,2010：67-93.
[182]鲍鸥.投资者——工工程共同体构成分析之三[M]//李伯聪等.工程社会学导论：工程共同体研究.杭州：浙江大学出版社,2010：99-102.
[183][美]希瑟·道格拉斯.将公众参与引入到科学中[M]//[瑞士]萨拜因·马森,[德]彼得·魏因加著.姜江,马晓琨,秦兰珺译.专业知识的民主化?探求科学咨询的新模式.上海：上海交通大学出版社,2010：199-223.
[184][美]罗伯特·C·所罗门著,罗汉等译.伦理与卓越——商业中的合作与诚信[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2006.
[185]张慧敏.当代西方民主的技术思想研究[M].沈阳：东北大学出版社,2006.
[186]世界银行专家组著,宋涛译.公共部门的社会问责：理念探讨及模式分析[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[187][美]B·盖伊·彼得斯著,吴爱明,夏宏图译.政府未来的治理模式[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[188]谈火生.审议民主理论的基本理念和理论流派[J].教学与研究,2006,(11)：50-56.
[189]安维复.工程决策的哲学分析[M]//殷瑞钰,李伯聪主编.工程与哲学(第一卷).北京：北京理工大学出版社,2007：147-148.
[190]刘述先.全球伦理与宗教对话[M].石家庄：河北人民出版社,2006.
[191][美]约翰·克莱顿·托马斯著,孙柏瑛等译.公共决策中的公民参与：公共管理者的新技能与新策略[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[192][美]阿米·古特曼,丹尼斯·汤普森著.杨立峰,葛水林,应奇译.民主与分歧[M].北京：东方出版社,2007.
[193][英]哈维·弗格森著,刘聪慧等译.现象学社会学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
[194]Rip A, Kulve H. Constructive technology assessment and socio-technical scenarios [M]//Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore J. The Yearbook of nanotechnology in society. New York:Springer,2008:265-289.
[195]Fiske J. Introduction to communication studies (2nd edition) [M]. New York:Routledge, 1990.
[196][美]乔尔·鲁蒂诺,安东尼·格雷博什著,霍欣欣等译.媒体与信息伦理学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.
[197][美]卡尔·科恩著,聂崇信,朱秀贤译.论民主[M].北京：商务印书馆,1988.
[198]刘兵,江洋.日本公众理解科学实践的一个案例：关于“转基因农作物”的“共识会议”[M]//刘华杰编.科学传播读本.上海：上海交通大学出版社,2007：346.
[199][美]桑德兰·哈丁著,夏侯炳译.科学的文化多元性[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,2002.
[200][美]约翰·维维安著,顾宜凡等译.大众传播媒介[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
[201]Calleja-Lopez A, Fisher E. Dialogues from the lab:contemparary Maieutics for socio-technical inquiry [C]//Society for Philosophy and Technology. SPT 2009 Biennial Meeting, June 7-10,2009, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands: SPT, c2009:79-80.
[202]高秉江.苏格拉底对话与理性的批判性[J].中共长春市委党校学报,2009,(3)：22-27.
[203]邓晓芒.苏格拉底与孔子的言说方式比较[J].开放时代,2000,(3)：39-45.
[204]王前.在理工科大学开展工程伦理教育的必要性和紧迫性[J].自然辩证法研究,2011,27(10)：110-111.
[2][美]西奥多·夏兹金.中文版序言[M]//[美]西奥多·夏兹金,[美]卡琳·诺尔·塞蒂纳,[德]埃克·冯·萨维尼(编).柯文,石诚(译).当代理论的实践转向.苏州：苏州大学出版社,2010：1-3.
[3][美]约瑟夫·劳斯(著).戴建平(译).涉入科学：如何从哲学上理解科学实践[M].苏州：苏州大学出版社,2010.
[4]Martin M, Schinzinger R. Ethics in engineering [M]. New York:McGraw-Hill,2004.
[5]Law J. Technology and heterogeneous engineering:the case of Portuguese expansion [M]. //Bi jker W, Hughes T, Pinch T. Eds. The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge:MIT Press,1987:111-134.
[6]Cua A. Emergence of the History of Chinese philosophy [M]//Mou B. Ed. Comparative approaches to Chinese philosophy. Burlington, Ashgate Publishing Company,2003:3-30.
[7]张汝伦.实践哲学：中国古代哲学的基本特质[N].文汇报,2004,07.25.
[8]约瑟夫·劳斯著,盛晓明等译.知识与权力：走向科学的政治哲学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2004.
[9]吴彤.复归科学实践——一种科学哲学的新反思[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2010.
[10]孟强.从表象到介入——科学实践的哲学研究[D].杭州：浙江大学,2006.
[11]蒋劲松,吴彤,王巍.科学实践哲学的新视野[M].呼和浩特：内蒙古人民出版社,2006.
[12]陈玉林.技术叙事研究——技术实践哲学的研究路径[J].科学技术哲学研究,2010,27(4)：65-70.
[13]王大洲,关士续.技术哲学、技术实践与技术理性[J].哲学研究,2004,(11)：55-60.
[14]Li B. The rise of philosophy of engineering in the east and the west [M]//van de Poel I, Goldberg D. Philosophy and Engineering:An Emerging Agenda. Dordrecht:Springer Science+Buiness Media B.V.,2010:31-40.
[15]Sinclair G. A call for philosophy of engineering [J]. Technology and Culture,1977, 18 (4):685-689.
[16]Goldman S, Cutcliffe S. Foreword [M]//Durbin P. Ed. Critical Perspectives on Nonacademic Science and Engineering. Bethlehem:Lehigh University Press,1991:7-8.
[17]路易斯·L·布希亚瑞利(著),安维复等(译).工程哲学[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社,2008.
[18]文森蒂.工程知识、设计类型与等级层次：进一步思考工程师知道什么[M]//张华夏,张志林.技术解释研究.北京：科学出版社,2005：119-129.
[19]Mitcham C. Engineering ethics in historical perspective and as an imperative in design [M]//Mitcham C. Thinking Ethics in Technology:Hennebach Lectures and Papers (1995-1996). Golden:Colorado School of Mines Press,1997:123-154.
[20]一个典型的实例参见兰登·温纳(Langdon Winner)在其所著《人工物有政治么?》一文中,对纽约长岛公园大道上的天桥所蕴含的殖民主义价值的分析。
[21]李伯聪.工程哲学引论——我造物故我在[M].郑州：大象出版社,2002.
[22]李伯聪.工程共同体中的工人——“工程共同体”研究之一[J].自然辩证法通讯,2005,27(02)：64-69.
[23]傅志寰.我国铁路提速工程的哲学思考[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007,37(03)：5-13.
[24]沈珠江.工程哲学就是发展哲学——一个工程师眼中的工程哲学[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006,21(02)：117-121.
[25]陆佑楣.从哲学高度不断认识水电工程[J].中国三峡建设,2005,(02)：4-8.
[26]Didier C. Engineering ethics [M]//Olsen J, Pedersen S, Hendricks V. Eds. A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology. Malden:Wiley-Blackwell,2009:426-432.
[27]Conlon E, Zandvoort H. Broadening ethics teaching in engineering:beyond the individualistic approach [J/OL]. Science and Engineering Ethics (2010-05-14) [2011-01-03] http://www. springerlink. com/content/3632826773064307/fulltext.pdf
[28]Son W. Philosophy of technology and macro-ethics in engineering [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2008,14:405-415.
[29]van de Poel I, Verbeek P. Ethics and engineering design [J]. Science, Technology, & Human Values,2006,31(03):223-236.
[30]Herkert J. Future directions in engineering ethics research:microethics, macroethics and the role of professional societies [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2001,07: 403-414.
[31]Kline R. Research ethics, engineering ethics, and science and technology studies [M]. //Mitcham C. Ed. Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Detroit:Macmillan Reference,2005:ⅹⅹⅹⅴ-xli.
[32]张恒力,胡新和.问题与建制：中国工程伦理学述评[M]//刘则渊,王续琨,王前主编.工程·技术·哲学：中国技术哲学年鉴(2006-2007).大连：大连理工大学出版社,2008：128-136.
[33]李世新.工程伦理学即其若干主要问题的研究[D].北京：中国社会科学院研究生院,2003.
[34]唐丽.美国工程伦理研究[M].沈阳：东北大学出版社,2007.
[35]李世新.工程伦理学的研究范式[J].北京理工大学学报(社会科学版),2010,12(3)：101-104.
[36]段新明.工程伦理教育的三个价值向度[J].自然辩证法研究,2010,26(3)：71-75.
[37]张玲.“以人为本”的工程伦理意蕴[J].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009,(6)：14-15.
[38]郭飞,王续刚.中国的工程伦理建设：背景、目标和对策[J].华中科技大学学报(社会科学版),2009,23(4)：116-121.
[39]参见唐丽.美国工程伦理研究[M].沈阳：东北大学出版社,2007;唐丽,陈凡.美国工程伦理学：一种社会学分析[J].东北大学学报(社会科学版),2008,10(1)：11-16;仲伟佳,丛杭青.美国工程伦理的历史与启示[J].高等工程教育研究,2008,(4)：34-37.
[40]唐丽,田鹏颖.日本工程伦理思想探略[J].辽东学院学报(社会科学版),2007,9(1)：29-32.
[41]张恒力.工程伦理规范的标准与方法——以巴伦西亚工业工程师协会伦理规范为例[J].自然辩证法通讯,2010,32(2)：21-25.
[42]万长松.苏俄工程伦理学述评[J].燕山大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,8(1)：133-138.
[43]Smith D. Phenomenology [M/OL] Zalta E. ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2008-06-28) [2011-01-09]. http://plato.stanford. edu/archives/sum2009/entries/phenomenology/
[44]Gjescdal K, Ramberg B. Hermeneutics [M/OL] Zalta E. ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2005-11-09) [2011-01-09]. http://plato. stanford. edu/archives/sum2009/entries/hermeneutics/
[45]这种道德推理(moral reasoning)模式,倾向于将伦理原则与规范看成本身并不存在问题的手段、工具或技术。在这一模式下,伦理学很难充分发挥促进人道德行为向善、促进道德知识增长的实践哲学的作用,而是成为解决伦理问题的原则与规范的修辞学,这里伦理原则与规范使用的效率决定了道德推理的优劣。
[46]van Tongeren P. Ethics, tradition, and hermeneutics [J]. Ethical Perspectives,1996, 3(3):175-183.
[47]Verstraeten J. Narrative and hermeneutics in applied ethics:some introductory considerations [J]. Ethical Perspectives,1994,1(1):51-56.
[48][德]海德格尔(著),陈嘉映等(译).存在与时间[M].北京：三联书店,2000.
[49]Verbeek P. Materializing morality:design ethics and technological mediation[J]. Science, Technology & Human Values,2006,31(3):361-380.
[50]Bucciarelli L. Ethics and engineering education [J]. European Journal of Engineering Education,2008,33(2):141-149.
[51]Thompson D. A mission of ethics [R/OL]//Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics. Ethics at Harvard (1987-2007). Cambridge:Harvard University,2007 [2011,01,29] http://www. ethics. harvard. edu/images/resources/pdfs/20threport. pdf
[52]LaFollette H. Pragmatic ethics [M]//LaFollette H. Ed. Blackwell guide to ethical theory. Malden:Wiley-Blackwell,2000:414-418.
[53]部分时候,米切姆也用"take more into account"指代"plus respicere"。
[54]Ess C. Discourse ethics [M]//Mitcham C. Ed. Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics (vol.2). Detroit:USA,2005:534.
[55]Ott K. The framework:discourse ethics [M]//Ott P, Thapa P. Eds. Greifswald's environmental ethics:from the work of the Michael Otto professorship at Ernst Moritz Arndt University 1997-2002. Greifswald:Steinbecker,2003:17.
[56]在我国学界,先后出现过两本以“技术解释”为题的著作。一本为张华夏与张志林所著《技术解释研究》(科学出版社2005年出版)；另一本为赵乐静所著《技术解释学》(科学出版社2009年出版)。两种“解释”分别代表着自然科学与人文社会科学的两种不同方法：即自然科学中的“解释”(explanation,也有译为“说明”)以及人文社会科学中的“理解”(understand)(参见：陈嘉明等著.科学解释与人文理解[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2010)。前者中的解释通常译为explanation,后者中的解释通常被译为hermeneutics。这里的解释主要是指前者,即从认识论与方法论视角对技术结构与功能的陈述(包括技术行动目标陈述、作为达到目标的手段的技术行为陈述、行动规则陈述、技术客体的结构陈述与功能陈述、技术客体的运行原理陈述等)(参见：张华夏,张志林.技术解释研究[M].北京：科学出版社,2005)。
[57]Lozano J. Developing an ethical code for engineers:the discursive approach [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2006,12(2):245-256.
[58]Phadke R. People's science in action:the politics of protest and knowledge brokering in India [M]//Johnson D, Wetmore J. Eds. Technology and society:building our sociotechnical future. Cambridge:MIT Press,2009:499-513.
[59]Winner L. Upon opening the black box and finding it empty:social constructivism and the philosophy of technology [J]. Science, Technology & Human Values,1993,18 (3): 362-378.
[60]Hauser-Kastenberg G, Kastenberg W, Norris D. Towards emergent ethical action and the culture of engineering [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2003,9(3):377-387.
[61]Schot J. Constructive technology assessment [M]//Mitcham C. Ed. Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics. Detroit:Macmillan Reference,2005:423-426.
[62][德]罗波尔.工程伦理学需要制度的支持[M]//王国豫,刘则渊.主编.科学技术伦理的跨文化对话.北京：科学出版社,2009：157-163.
[63]Grunwald A. Technology assessment or ethics of technology? reflections on technology development between social sciences and philosophy [J]. Ethical Perspectives,1999, 6(2):170.
[64]Gouran D. Making decisions in groups [M]. Glenview:Scott, Foresman and Company,1982.
[65]Schuuribiers D, Fisher E. Lab-scale intervention [J]. EMBO Report,2009,10(5): 424-427.
[66]Mitcham C. Technology and ethics:from expertise to participation [M]//Mitcham C. Thinking Ethics in Technology:Hennebach Lectures and Papers (1995-1996). Golden: Colorado School of Mines Press,1997:17-27.
[67]Devon R. Towards a social ethics of technology:a research prospect [J]. Techne,2007, 11(1).
[68]Mitcham C. Co-responsibility for research integrity [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2003,9(2):273-290.
[69]Coeckelbergh M, Wachers G. Imagination, distributed responsibility, and vulnerable technological systems:the case of Snorre A [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2007, 13 (2):235-248.
[70][美]查尔斯·哈里斯等著,丛杭青等译.工程伦理：概念与案例[M].北京：北京理工大学出版社,2006.
[71][德]乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会：走向另一种现代性[M].南京：译林出版社,2004.
[72]王前,朱勤,李艺芸.纳米技术风险管理的哲学思考[J].科学通报,2011,56(2)：135-141.
[73]俞可平.引论：治理与善治[M]//俞可平主编.治理与善治.北京：社会科学文献出版社,2000：8.
[74]Harris C, Prichard M, Rabins M. Engineering ethics:concepts and cases (4th edition) M.Belmont:Wadsworth,2009.
[75]Perrow C. Normal accidents:living with high-risk technologies. Princeton:Princeton University Press,1999.
[76]Harris C. The good engineer:giving virtue its due in engineering ethics [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2008,14:153-164.
[77][法]保罗·利科(著),莫伟民(译).解释的冲突：解释学文集[M].北京：商务印书馆,2008.
[78]马茨·艾尔维森,卡伊·舍尔德贝里(著),陈仁仁(译).质性研究的理论视角：一种反身性的方法论[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2009.
[79]Davis M. Engineering ethics, individuals, and organizations [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2006,12:223-231.
[80]Harris C, Pritchard M, Rabins M. Engineering ethics:overview [M].//Mitcham C. Ed. Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Detroit:Macmillan Reference,2005: 625-632.
[81]Chang H. Operationalism [M/OL] Zalta E. ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2009-07-16) [2011-03-13]. http://plato. stanford. edu/archives/sum2009/entries/operationalism/
[82]Bridgman P. The logic of modern physics [M]. New York:Macmillan,1927.
[83]罗嘉昌.操作主义[M]//于光远主编.自然辩证法百科全书.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1995：21.
[84]Fisher E, Mahajan R, Mitcham C. Midstream modulation of technology:governance from within [J]. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society,2006,26 (06):485-496.
[85]Durbin P. Social Responsibility in Science, Technology and Medicine [M]. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press,1992.
[86][英]Finlayson J G(著),邵志军(译).哈贝马斯[M].南京：译林出版社,2010.
[87]陈嘉明等.科学解释与人文理解[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2010.
[88]李伯聪.工程与伦理的互渗与对话——再谈关于工程伦理学的若干问题[J].华中科技大学学报(社会科学版),2006,20(4)：71-72.
[89]Mitcham C. The importance of philosophy to engineering [J]. Teoreama:Revista Internacional de filosofia,1998,17 (3). Bucciarelli L. Engineering Philosophy. Amsterdam:IOS Press,2003.
[90]Mitcham C. Applied ethics and its problems:a plea for the centrality of technology [M]//Mitcham C. Thinking Ethics in Technology:Hennebach Lectures and Papers (1995-1996). Golden:Colorado School of Mines Press,1997:155-169.
[91][德]汉斯-格奥尔格·加达默尔(著),夏镇平,宋建平(译).哲学解释学[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2004.
[92][美]维西林,冈恩(著),吴晓东,翁端(译).工程、伦理与环境[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003.
[93][德]汉斯-格奥尔格·伽达默尔(著),洪汉鼎(译).真理与方法——哲学诠释学的基本特征[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.
[94]Hansson S. Safety engineering:practice [M]//Mitcham C. Ed. Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics (vol.4). Detroit:USA,2005:1674-1675.
[95]Mitcham C, Duval S. Engineering ethics [M]. Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall:2000.
[96][美]迈克·W.马丁,罗兰·辛津格著,李世新译.工程伦理学[M].北京：首都师范大学出版社,2010.
[97]Huff C, Frey W. Moral pedagogy and practical ethics [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2005,11(3):389-408.
[98]Mitcham C. Thinking through technology:the path between engineering and philosophy [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1994.
[99][美]丹尼尔·L·巴布科克,露西·C·莫尔斯著.金永红,奚玉芹译.工程技术管理学[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[100]Herkert J. Engineering ethics and public policy [M]//Herkert J, ed. Social, ethical, and policy implications of engineering [M]. Piscataway:IEEE Press,2000:145-146.
[101]Herkert J. Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving:microethics and macroethics in engineering [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2005,11(3): 373-385.
[102]朱勤,王前.社会技术系统论视角下的工程伦理学研究[J].道德与文明,2010,(6)：119-124.
[103]Colby A, Sullivan W. Teaching ethics in undergraduate engineering education [J]. Journal of Engineering Education,2008,97(3):327-338.
[104]Kline R. Using history & sociology to teach engineering ethics [J]. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, winter 2001/2002:13-20.
[105][美]诺曼·K·邓金著,周勇译.解释性交往行动主义：个人经历的叙事、倾听与理解[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2004.
[106]Lynch W, Kline R. Engineering practice and engineering ethics [J]. Science, Technology & Human Values,2000,25(2):195-225.
[107]Kline R. Engineering case studies:bridging micro and macro ethics [J]. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, winter 2010:16-19.
[108]Johnson D, Miller K. Computer ethics:analyzing information technology [M]. Upper Saddle River:Prentice Hall,2009.
[109][古希腊]亚里士多德著,苗力田译.尼各马科伦理学[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[110][美]史蒂文·卢坡尔著,陈燕译.伦理学导论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[111][美]休·拉福莱特主编,龚群主译.伦理学理论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[112]Davis M. Explaining wrongdoing [J]. Journal of Social Philosophy,1989,20(1-2): 74-90.
[113]朱勤.米切姆工程设计伦理思想评析[J].道德与文明,2009,(1)：88-92.
[114]Bowen W. Engineering ethics:outline of an aspirational approach [M]. London: Springer-Verlag,2009.
[115][美]帕特里夏·奥坦伯德·约翰逊著,何卫平译.伽达默尔[M].北京：中华书局,2003.
[116][德]汉斯-格奥尔格·加达默尔著,洪汉鼎译.真理与方法：哲学诠释学的基本特征(上卷).上海：上海译文出版社,2004.
[117]Doorn N, Fahlquist J. Responsibility in engineering:toward a new role for engineering ethicists [J]. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society,2010,30(3):222-230.
[118]设计师通过天桥的高度设计,通过限定通往大桥的车辆而限定了通往长岛的人群。大桥的高度很低,只能允许私人驾驶的汽车的通过,而对于乘坐双层巴士的低收入人群往往因为高度的限制而无法通过。
[119][德]汉斯-格奥尔格·加达默尔著,洪汉鼎译.真理与方法：哲学诠释学的基本特征(下卷).上海：上海译文出版社,2004.
[120]Unger S. Controlling technology:ethics and the responsible engineer (2nd edition) [M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,1994.
[121]以(美国)全国职业工程师学会(NSPE)工程师伦理守则为例：在6基本准则中,第一条是“将公众的安全、健康和福利放在首位”。
[122]这句话的英文原文为：take off your engineering hat and put on his management hat。
[123]Vaughan D. Theorizing disaster:analogy, historical ethnography, and the Challenger accident [J]. Ethnography,2004,5(3):315-347.
[124]Vaughan D. History as a cause:Columbia and Challenger [M]//CAIB Report Volumel, 2003:195-201.
[125]Murata J. From Challenger to Columbia:what lessons can we learn from the report of the Columbia accident investigation board for engineering ethics [J]? Techne,2006, 10 (1):35-53.
[126]马克思恩格斯全集(第三卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,2008.
[127]徐长山.工程十论——关于工程的哲学探讨[M].西安：西南交通大学出版社,2010.
[128]van de Poel I, Royakkers L. Ethics, technology, and engineering:an introduction [M]. Malden:Wiley-Blackwell,2011.
[129]朱勤.技术中介理论：一种现象学的技术伦理学思路[J].科学技术哲学研究,2010,27(1)：101-106.
[130]McCarthy N. Engineering:a beginner's guide [M]. Oxford:Oneworld Publications, 2009.
[131]Collingridge D. Social control of technology [M]. London:Frances Pinter,1980.
[132]Liebert W, Schmidt J. Collingridge's dilemma and technoscience:an attempt to provide a clarification from the perspective of the philosophy of science [J]. Poiesis & Prax: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science,2010,7(1-2): 55-71.
[133]Durbin P. Activist philosophy of technology essays (1989-1999) [EB/OL]. [2011,04,23]. www. udel.edu/Philosophy/sites/pd/files/activistl. pdf.
[134]孟强.从表象到介入：科学实践的哲学研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008.
[135]海德格尔著,孙周兴选编.《海德格尔选集(下)》.上海：上海三联书店,1999.
[136][美]斯蒂文·费什米尔著,徐鹏,马如俊译.杜威与道德想象力：伦理学中的实用主义[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
[137]Lichtenberg J. What are codes of ethics for? [M]//Coady M, Block S. eds. Codes of ethics and the professions. Melbourne:Melbourne University Press,1996:95.
[138][美]克里斯蒂娜·科尔斯戈德著,杨顺利译.规范性的来源[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2010.
[139]转引自晁乐红.中庸与中道：先秦儒家与亚里士多德思想比较研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2010.
[140]就道德规范的知识而言,我们知道需要尊重人(包括尸体),同时我们也知道工程实践的目的是为了给人类带来福利(包括挽救更多的人的生命)。然而,如何在两者之间正确地做事而有效地落实相关道德规范,却是真正的困难所在。
[141][美]玛莎·纳斯鲍姆著,徐向东,陆萌译.善的脆弱性：古希腊悲剧和哲学中的运气与伦理[M].南京：译林出版社,2007.
[142]Martin M. Meaningful Work [M]. New York:Oxford University Press,2000.
[143]Luegenbiehl H. Teaching engineering ethics across national borders [C]//American Society for Engineering Education. Global Issues in Engineering Education.2003 Annual Meeting of ASEE, June 22-25,2003, Nashville, Tennessee:ASEE, c2003.
[144][美]杰夫·麦克马汉.道德直觉[M]//[美]休·拉福莱特主编,龚群主译.伦理学理论.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[145][美]托德·莱肯(著),陶秀璈等译,张弛泽.造就道德：伦理学理论的实用主义重构[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
[146]王前.技术现代化的文化制约[M].沈阳：东北大学出版社,2002.
[147]阿里克奇除了使用script之外,同时还使用scenario。事实上,两者的意义是相同的,彼此可以视为是同义语,都是意指(电影、戏剧等的)剧情说明、脚本、 (行动的)方案、纲要等。
[148]Akrich M. The de-scription of technological objects [M]//Bi jker W, Law J. ed. Shaping technology/building society:studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge:MIT Press, 1992:208.
[149]Latour B. Where are the missing masses:the sociology of a few mundane artifacts [M]//Bi jker W, Law J. ed. Shaping technology/building society:studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge:MIT Press,1992:232.
[150]Cooper T. Hierarchy, virtue, and the practice of public administration:a perspective for normative ethics [J]. Public Administration Review,1987,47(4):320-328.
[151]赵乐静.技术解释学[M].北京：科学出版社,2009.
[152][美]约翰·罗尔斯著,何怀宏等译.正义论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2009.
[153]李伯聪.工程伦理学的若干理论问题[J].哲学研究,2006,(4)：97.
[154]Friedman A, Miles S. Stakeholders:theory and practice[M]. Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press,2006.
[155]Freeman R. Strategic management:a stakeholder approach [M]. Boston:Pitman Press, 1984.
[156]王前.中西文化比较概论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[157]孟子·梁惠王上
[158]孟子·公孙丑
[159]Alexander T. John Dewey and the moral imagination:beyond Putnan and Rorty toward a postmodern ethics [J]. Transition of the Charles S. Peirce society,1990,3:384-386.(转引自[美]斯蒂文·费什米尔著,徐鹏,马如俊译.杜威与道德想象力：伦理学中的实用主义[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010：102.)
[160]Bunnin N, Yu J. The Blackwell dictionary of Western philosophy [M]. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell,2004.
[161]前两者致力于将决疑法应用于生物伦理学与医学伦理学的实践,后两者注重将决疑法应用于工程伦理学的实践操作。
[162]Miller R. Casuistry and modern ethics:a poetics of practical reasoning [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1996.
[163]这一阶段需要不断地运用类比方法,乔森这一阶段称之为“道德分类学(moral taxonomy) "。
[164][美]菲利普·赫梅林斯基著,朱勤译.案例分析与工程伦理：当代国际化职业实践的传统资源[M]//安延明,王前主编.应用伦理学的新视野——2007年“科技伦理与职业伦理”国际学术研讨会文集.北京：人民出版社,2008：163.
[165]Fogg B. Persuasive technology:using computers to change what we think and do [M]. New York:Morgan Kaufmann,2002.
[166]Lau J, Chan J. Reflective equilibrium [EB/OL]. (2004,05,11) [2011,08,12] http://philosophy, hku. hk/think/value/reflect. php
[167]Mitcham C, Munoz D. Humanitarian engineering [M]. Breinigsville:Morgan & Claypool Publishers,2010.
[168]Humanitarian Engineering Program. What is humanitarian engineering? [EB/OL] (2011, 07,20) [2011,08,18] http://http://humanitarian. mines.edu/
[169]Friedman B. Value-sensitive design:a research agenda for information technology [EB/OL]. (1999,08,23) [2011,08,19] http://www. vsdesign. org/outreach/pdf/friedman99VSD_Research_Agenda. pdf
[170]Friedman B etl al. Value senstive design and information system [M]//Zhang P, Galletta D, eds. Human-computer interaction in management systems:foundations. New York:M. E. Sharpe,2006:348-372.
[171]Van den Hoven J, Manders-Huits N. Value-sensitive design [M]//Olsen J, Pedersen S, Hendricks V. Eds. A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell,2009:477-480.
[172]Friedman B et al. Informed consent in the Mozilla browser:implementing value-sensitive design [C]//Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,2002, University of Hawaii. IEEE.
[173][荷]西斯·哈姆林克著,李世新译.赛博空间伦理学[M].北京：首都师范大学出版社,2010.
[174]Shaw G B. The doctor's dilemma [M]//Shaw B. Six plays. New York:Dodd Mead,1941.
[175]The McGraw Hill encyclopedia of science and technology (vol.6) [M]. New York: McGraw-Hill,1997.
[176]Guston D, Sarewitz D. Real-time technology assessment [J]. Techology in society,2002, 24 (1):93-109.
[177]Habermas J. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge:MIT Press,1993.
[178]舒红跃.技术与生活世界[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2006.
[179]冈特·绍伊博尔德.海德格尔分析新时代的技术[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1993.
[180]李伯聪.工程共同体研究和工程社会学的开拓——“工程共同体”研究之三[J].自然辨证法通讯,2008,30(1)：63-68.
[181]王前,朱勤.工人——工程共同体构成分析之二[M]//李伯聪等.工程社会学导论：工程共同体研究.杭州：浙江大学出版社,2010：67-93.
[182]鲍鸥.投资者——工工程共同体构成分析之三[M]//李伯聪等.工程社会学导论：工程共同体研究.杭州：浙江大学出版社,2010：99-102.
[183][美]希瑟·道格拉斯.将公众参与引入到科学中[M]//[瑞士]萨拜因·马森,[德]彼得·魏因加著.姜江,马晓琨,秦兰珺译.专业知识的民主化?探求科学咨询的新模式.上海：上海交通大学出版社,2010：199-223.
[184][美]罗伯特·C·所罗门著,罗汉等译.伦理与卓越——商业中的合作与诚信[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2006.
[185]张慧敏.当代西方民主的技术思想研究[M].沈阳：东北大学出版社,2006.
[186]世界银行专家组著,宋涛译.公共部门的社会问责：理念探讨及模式分析[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[187][美]B·盖伊·彼得斯著,吴爱明,夏宏图译.政府未来的治理模式[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[188]谈火生.审议民主理论的基本理念和理论流派[J].教学与研究,2006,(11)：50-56.
[189]安维复.工程决策的哲学分析[M]//殷瑞钰,李伯聪主编.工程与哲学(第一卷).北京：北京理工大学出版社,2007：147-148.
[190]刘述先.全球伦理与宗教对话[M].石家庄：河北人民出版社,2006.
[191][美]约翰·克莱顿·托马斯著,孙柏瑛等译.公共决策中的公民参与：公共管理者的新技能与新策略[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[192][美]阿米·古特曼,丹尼斯·汤普森著.杨立峰,葛水林,应奇译.民主与分歧[M].北京：东方出版社,2007.
[193][英]哈维·弗格森著,刘聪慧等译.现象学社会学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
[194]Rip A, Kulve H. Constructive technology assessment and socio-technical scenarios [M]//Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore J. The Yearbook of nanotechnology in society. New York:Springer,2008:265-289.
[195]Fiske J. Introduction to communication studies (2nd edition) [M]. New York:Routledge, 1990.
[196][美]乔尔·鲁蒂诺,安东尼·格雷博什著,霍欣欣等译.媒体与信息伦理学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.
[197][美]卡尔·科恩著,聂崇信,朱秀贤译.论民主[M].北京：商务印书馆,1988.
[198]刘兵,江洋.日本公众理解科学实践的一个案例：关于“转基因农作物”的“共识会议”[M]//刘华杰编.科学传播读本.上海：上海交通大学出版社,2007：346.
[199][美]桑德兰·哈丁著,夏侯炳译.科学的文化多元性[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,2002.
[200][美]约翰·维维安著,顾宜凡等译.大众传播媒介[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
[201]Calleja-Lopez A, Fisher E. Dialogues from the lab:contemparary Maieutics for socio-technical inquiry [C]//Society for Philosophy and Technology. SPT 2009 Biennial Meeting, June 7-10,2009, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands: SPT, c2009:79-80.
[202]高秉江.苏格拉底对话与理性的批判性[J].中共长春市委党校学报,2009,(3)：22-27.
[203]邓晓芒.苏格拉底与孔子的言说方式比较[J].开放时代,2000,(3)：39-45.
[204]王前.在理工科大学开展工程伦理教育的必要性和紧迫性[J].自然辩证法研究,2011,27(10)：110-111.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |