温建華. / "2003年5月". / 論文(哲學碩士)--香港中文大學, 2003. / 參考文獻 (leaves 91-95). / 附中英文摘要. / "2003 nian 5 yue". / Wen Jianhua. / Lun wen (zhe xue shuo shi)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue, 2003. / Can kao wen xian (leaves 91-95). / Fu Zhong Ying wen zhai yao. / 圓與個案 --- p.v / 前言 --- p.viii / Chapter 第一章 --- 吉利根與女性主義倫理學 --- p.1 / Chapter 第一節 --- 科爾伯格與吉利根的論戰 --- p.2 / Chapter I. --- 科爾伯格的道德發展理論 --- p.2 / Chapter II. --- 吉利根：另一種道德聲音 --- p.5 / Chapter 第二節 --- 概念界定及說明 --- p.9 / Chapter 第三節 --- 女性主義倫理學對道德的看法 --- p.24 / Chapter 第四節 --- 小結 --- p.32 / Chapter 第二章 --- 道德與自我 --- p.36 / Chapter 第一節 --- 具體他人與道德責任 --- p.36 / Chapter 第二節 --- 關聯性的自我觀 --- p.40 / Chapter I. --- 關聯性自我觀確立的參照點和預設 --- p.40 / Chapter II. --- 關聯性自我觀的特點 --- p.42 / Chapter 第三節 --- 以關聯性取代社群性 --- p.51 / Chapter 第四節 --- 小結 --- p.58 / Chapter 第三章 --- 關懷、道德感知與道德判斷 --- p.61 / Chapter 第一節 --- 關懷作為一種感知模式 --- p.62 / Chapter I. --- 個案 --- p.63 / Chapter II. --- 關懷與偏倚的真相 --- p.65 / Chapter 第二節 --- 道德判斷、個殊性與道德感知 --- p.68 / Chapter 第三節 --- 關懷情感與道德感知 --- p.76 / Chapter I. --- 情感在道德推理中的地位 --- p.76 / Chapter II. --- 情感與道德判斷 --- p.79 / Chapter III. --- 自我標準與情感教育 --- p.83 / Chapter 第四節 --- 小結 --- p.84 / Chapter 第四章 --- 結語 --- p.86 / 參考書目 --- p.91

郭柏年. / "2003年7月". / 論文(哲學碩士)--香港中文大學, 2003. / 參考文獻 (leaves 81-83). / 附中英文摘要. / "2003 nian 7 yue". / Guo Bonian. / Lun wen (zhe xue shuo shi)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue, 2003. / Can kao wen xian (leaves 81-83). / Fu Zhong Ying wen zhai yao. / 摘要 --- p.i / Chapter 第一章 --- 導論 / Chapter 1.1. --- 故事 --- p.1 / Chapter 1.2 --- 苛刻論證的結構 --- p.5 / Chapter 1.3 --- 本文的方法論和結構 --- p.6 / Chapter 第二章 --- 效益主義是苛刻的道德理論嗎？ / Chapter 2.1 --- 效益主義的特性 --- p.10 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- 後果原則 --- p.11 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- 無偏私原則 --- p.12 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- 極大化原則 --- p.13 / Chapter 2.1.4 --- 可比較原則 --- p.13 / Chapter 2.1.5 --- 消極責任 --- p.14 / Chapter 2.2 --- 效益主義如何苛刻？ --- p.16 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- 不合理的犧牲 --- p.17 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- 道德異化 --- p.19 / Chapter 2.2.2.1 --- 自我異化 --- p.21 / Chapter 2.2.2.2 --- 與他人的異化 --- p.23 / Chapter 2.3 --- 效益主義的回應 --- p.26 / Chapter 2.4 --- 小結 --- p.30 / Chapter 第三章 --- 道德規範的界限 / Chapter 3.1 --- 常識的道德觀 --- p.32 / Chapter 3.2 --- 道德界域的範圍 --- p.35 / Chapter 3.3 --- 道德理由的凌駕性 --- p.38 / Chapter 3.4 --- 道德規範的要求 --- p.42 / Chapter 3.4.1 --- 道德選擇的多樣性 --- p.44 / Chapter 3.4.2 --- 「行動者的代價」的理論困難 --- p.45 / Chapter 3.4.3 --- 「個人觀點」 --- p.46 / Chapter 3.5 --- 小結 --- p.52 / Chapter 第四章 --- 重構效益主義 / Chapter 4.1 --- 效益主義與後果主義 --- p.53 / Chapter 4.2 --- 赫爾的效益主義 --- p.55 / Chapter 4.2.1 --- 兩層道德思維 --- p.55 / Chapter 4.2.2 --- 兩層道德思維的問題 --- p.59 / Chapter 4.3 --- 滿足式後果主義 --- p.62 / Chapter 4.3.1 --- 放棄極大化原則 --- p.62 / Chapter 4.3.2 --- 滿足式後果主義的問題 --- p.66 / Chapter 4.4 --- 混合理論 --- p.69 / Chapter 4.4.1 --- 無偏私原則與個人觀點 --- p.69 / Chapter 4.4.2 --- 混合理論的問題 --- p.72 / Chapter 4.5 --- 小結 --- p.77 / Chapter 第五章 --- 結論 --- p.78 / 參考書目 --- p.81

Thesis (M.Admin.(Public Administration)) -- University of Pretoria, 2007. / Abstract in English. Includes bibliographical references. Available on the Internet via the World Wide Web.

Thesis (M.Soc.Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 2006. / Title from title page (viewed Apr. 19, 2007) Includes bibliographical references (p. 24-25)

Thesis (M.A.)--Harding Graduate School of Religion, 1986. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 140-153).

In this paper, I plan to explore whether giving gifts, inheritance, or charity can be justified using the concept of self-ownership. I will be using Robert Nozick's principle of justice in transfer in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia as my foundation, and I will determine whether gifts – as a form of transfer – are compatible with this principle. The main argument will be that gifts are not compatible with Nozick's principle of justice in transfer because they cannot be justified using the principle of self-ownership. The point of this argument against gifting is to show that Nozick's principle of justice in transfer is incomplete. Not all transfer can be justified using self-ownership, and thus we need another principle along with it. It is essentially an argument ad absurdum. If we show that gifting cannot be justified, the only choice is to create a system that does not include gifts, charity, or inheritance. But, as I will discuss in the conclusion, such a system would be intuitively incorrect, and would lead to ridiculous practical consequences. Thus, I aim to show that self-ownership cannot do all of the work in Nozick's theory – he must add another principle that can account for gifting. In the first chapter, I will outline the arguments for the principle of self-ownership, and how these arguments lead to property ownership. I will also describe what it means to own property, or to have a right to property. In the second chapter, I will examine the principle of justice in transfer and the free market, and some of the objections to them. The third chapter deals with the argument specifically against gifting, and the fourth chapter shows how the arguments against gifting do not extend to market transfer. In the fifth chapter, I will describe and refute some possible objections to the idea that gifting cannot be justified using self-ownership within the principle of justice in transfer. In the conclusion, I will look at some of the practical consequences that show us why a system without gifting would be absurd.

Migration has always been generating a complex tension between individuals and nations. There are many perspectives on why people migrate, how people migrate, what impact migration has on what are called 'receiving' and 'sending' countries, and whether countries should encourage or limit migration. This thesis is devoted to analyzing a fundamental phenomenon which accompanies migration itself, namely human capital flight. This phenomenon is often depicted by its more popularized name, 'brain drain'. It concerns that highly skilled workers in developing countries seek a better future by migrating to developed countries. There has been an ongoing debate about the negative and positive effects of human capital flows. Most importantly, it can create problems for the sending country, given that expertise and skills are 'lost'. For that reason, my research will focus on the emigration of highly skilled workers and its impact on the sending countries as they are mainly the most disadvantageous participants of this human capital flow. Accordingly, the questions to be examined concern the competiting rights and duties hold between migrants and nation states.  To what extent, are developing states in their right to restrict this type of emigration? Whether freedom of movement can be reckoned as an indispensable human right?

Thesis (M.A.)--Oregon State University, 2010. / Printout. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 78-80). Also available on the World Wide Web.

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity International University, 2001. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 63-68).

Thesis (M.S.)--Naval Postgraduate School, 2002. / Thesis advisor(s): Jeffrey Cuskey, David V. Lamm. Includes bibliographical references (p. 53-54). Also available online.