The most fundamental moral principles of psychological counselors are honesty and trustworthiness, enthusiasm and friendliness, keeping secrets, and heart-to-heart communication.

Why is this a moral code that school counselors must abide by? Psychological counseling is very important.

Failure to observe moral standards

Lead to students' inner unhealthy.

This is very harmful to students.

What ethical principles should psychometric workers follow? 1. Excellent professional ability.

Second, noble professional ethics.

Third, healthy psychological quality.

Besides, you need patience, flexibility and vigilance.

The most fundamental principle of insurance planning is the purpose principle. The fundamental purpose of establishing the principle of insurable interest is to prevent moral hazard, so as to better realize the function of insurance "dispersing risks and compensating losses". Although the principle of insurable interest is established as one of the basic principles of insurance contract in many countries' insurance legislation at present, there are differences in understanding the basic connotation and application of the principle of insurable interest, which will inevitably have different influences on insurance practice. Therefore, it is of great significance to analyze the connotation and related issues of the principle of insurable interest in insurance theory and practice.

What are the moral principles of Zen? On Zen Morality: When Niu Naixi, the sixth ancestor, first met Hongren, the fifth ancestor, Hongren asked him: Where are you from? What do you want from me today? Huineng replied: I am a common people in Lingnan. I have come all the way to worship the monk, and I have no desire but to become a Buddha.

What does Harman think is the most fundamental principle of justice? One summer day in 2004, after swimming in Tuancheng Lake in the Summer Palace, I sat under the tree by the lake as usual and wrote a new ethics for more than 20 years. Suddenly, I heard Mr. Wu, a swimmer from Peking University, shouting: Help! Help! I saw a man struggling in the lake. Teacher Li of the Academy of Sciences immediately jumped into the water, and several of us jumped in succession, struggling to rescue the drowning man from the shore. The drowning man turned out to be a migrant worker in Henan, and we didn't know him.

Excuse me, is it just for us to save the drowning man? No. Is this unfair behavior? Of course not. It doesn't mean justice or injustice, but it is just a kind, proper and moral behavior. Generally speaking, saving people from fire and water, or helping the poor, helping others, repaying the kindness of dripping water, etc. They are all appropriate, moral, kind and fair, but they can't be said to be fair, let alone unfair: fairness and unfairness are not important. On the other hand, killing people, stealing goods, cheating, stealing and robbing, etc. They are all evil, unjust and immoral, but they can't be said to be unfair, let alone just: they don't care whether they are just or not. Therefore, although justice is a just, moral, kind and just act; Injustice is an inappropriate, improper, immoral and evil behavior. However, on the other hand, goodness, justice, morality and justice are not all just; Evil, unjust, unjust, immoral, not all unjust.

So, what kind of good and proper behavior is justice? What people deserve is the classic definition of justice. According to this definition, justice is the behavior that the object of action deserves, and it is the behavior that gives people what they deserve and does not give people what they deserve; Injustice is the behavior that the object of action does not deserve, and it is the behavior that gives people what they do not deserve and does not give people what they deserve. But the wicked get what they deserve, and the good get what they deserve, because the wicked get what they deserve. On the other hand, it's unfair that the wicked deserve good and the good deserve bad, because the wicked don't deserve good and the good don't deserve bad. Obviously, the classic definition of justice is good. But this definition is not clear enough. Because "due" is not a simple and clear concept: what is due to others?

Does giving people what they deserve mean doing what they should do? Plato's answer is yes: "Justice is doing what should be done." But this definition is untenable. Imagine, is there really no difference between what Zhang San did to Li Si and what Zhang San did to Li Si? At first glance, there seems to be no difference. But look closely, but it is very different. Because Zhang San did what Li Si deserved, it must be related to Li Si's previous behavior: what Zhang San did was a reward or exchange for Li Si's previous behavior, so Li Si deserved it. On the other hand, if Zhang San does what he should do to Li Si, it is not necessarily related to Li Si's previous behavior, nor is it necessarily the retribution of Li Si's previous behavior, so it is not necessarily what Li Si deserves, but what Zhang San should do. For example, Li Si is ill in bed, and Zhang San helps with the money. Can you say that Zhang San did what Li Si deserved? It depends on Li Si's behavior before. If Li Si helped Zhang San before, it can be said that Zhang San did what Li Si deserved. Otherwise, it can only be said that Zhang San did what Li Si should do. It can be seen that the so-called deserved is bound to be related to the behavior of the person who deserves it before: deserved is a kind of return or exchange, and it is the return or exchange of the person who deserves it. Therefore, justice is a classic definition of giving people what they deserve. The original meaning is that justice is a kind of return or exchange. However, the kindness of dripping water is also a kind of return or exchange: is this behavior fair? Are you worth it? Obviously not. Then, what kind of reward or exchange behavior is justice and gives people what they deserve?

Aristotle replied: justice is the kind of return or exchange behavior with equality, equality, equality and proportionality. More correctly, justice is a good deed of equal (equal, equal) benefit exchange, equal benefit exchange and equal harm exchange, and equal benefit exchange. Unfair regularization is the evil of inequality (inequality, difference, etc.). ) interest exchange, unequal interest exchange and unequal damage exchange, unequal interest (damage) exchange. There is no distinction between justice and injustice between saving people and killing people. However, if it is out of gratitude to save your former savior, it is a fair exchange of interests; If you avenge your father and kill the villain who killed his father, it is an exchange of harm, so it is also a fair act; If you are ungrateful and see that your former benefactor is in trouble, it is a bad deed and unfair behavior to exchange benefits without waiting for help; If the other party really kills him because he insults himself, it is the evil of unequal exchange, so it is also unfair.

This definition can be confirmed by Hume's far-reaching theory of "the origin and premise of justice", because Hume attributed the origin and premise of justice to two necessary conditions: one is the objective condition, that is, the relative lack of wealth; The other is the subjective condition, that is, the self-love and self-interest of human nature. Why is the lack of wealth the origin and premise of justice? Isn't it because the essence of justice is equal exchange of interests, and the lack of wealth inevitably requires equal exchange of interests? If wealth is not scarce but extremely rich, and everyone can have everything he needs, then people don't need to haggle over every ounce in the exchange of equal interests and justice. Therefore, the lack of wealth is the objective origin and premise of justice, which means that the essence of justice is equal exchange of interests. Then, why are self-interest and limited generosity the origin and premise of justice? Isn't it because the essence of justice is equal exchange of interests, and self-interest and limited generosity inevitably require equal exchange of interests? If everyone loves others more than himself, and loves others more than himself, then people obviously don't need to haggle over the principle of equal interest exchange and justice. Therefore, egoism and limited generosity are the subjective origin and premise of justice, which means that the essence of justice is equal exchange of interests.

Justice is an equal exchange of interests, which obviously means that justice has two sides: equal exchange of interests is positive, affirmative and positive justice; The exchange of equal harm is negative, negative and negative justice. However, any kind of justice is a kind of goodness and belongs to the category of moral goodness. However, the exchange of equal harm belongs to the field of revenge, revenge and harm: how can it be moral good? If it is not good but evil, it cannot belong to the category of justice, so it cannot be the type of justice. Indeed, the exchange of equal harm, as far as it is concerned, is not good but evil: "revenge on feelings, as far as it is concerned, is not moral." However, the exchange of equal harm, as far as its result is concerned, is an extremely great good. Because equal injury exchange means that if a person hurts society and others, he will suffer the same injury. In this way, he will not easily hurt society and others. Therefore, equal harm exchange can make people avoid mutual harm, give society and people a sense of security, which is extremely beneficial to social development and interpersonal communication, and is also extremely in line with moral purposes. This is an extremely important commodity.

In this way, the exchange of equal harm is undoubtedly good and moral, not evil and immoral, in terms of its own net balance between evil and good. This is the basis of equal injury exchange or equal revenge as an extremely important moral principle, that is, one of the main categories of justice. However, it cannot be said that all revenge is just, moral and kind. Only reciprocal revenge and reciprocal injury exchange are just, moral and good; The act of going too far and retaliating against small harm with great harm is tantamount to pure harm to others, so it is evil and immoral. Therefore, revenge and revenge can not be carried out by the victim in private, but must be carried out by social justice, administration and other relevant departments. Otherwise, it is easy to go too far, go too far, pay back grievances, and cause great harm to society and people, so it is an evil and immoral behavior.

If equal harm exchange is an extremely important moral principle and an extremely important principle of justice, is it more important than another kind of justice-equal benefit exchange? The value and significance of equal harm exchange lies in avoiding mutual harm. On the contrary, the value and significance of equal interest exchange is undoubtedly to achieve mutual benefit. In this way, which is more fundamental and important, the principle of equal harm exchange or the principle of equal benefit exchange, comes down to: avoiding mutual harm and realizing mutual benefit, which is more fundamental and important? Gilbert Harman thinks the former is more fundamental and important: "In our morality, it is more important to avoid hurting others than to help those in need." This view is untenable. Because on the one hand, from a qualitative point of view, people form a society and establish contacts, obviously for mutual benefit and thus enhance their respective interests, and never for mutual harm and thus reduce their respective interests; It is entirely for "I am for everyone, and everyone is for me", not for "I hurt everyone, and everyone hurts me": mutual harm is only an inevitable side effect of social cooperation and interpersonal communication. On the other hand, from a quantitative point of view, in terms of the sum of the behaviors of the whole society, mutually harmful behaviors must be less than mutually beneficial behaviors. Otherwise, everyone suffers more harm than gain in social cooperation and interpersonal communication; Then, social cooperation and interpersonal communication will inevitably collapse and cannot exist. It can be seen that mutual benefit is far more fundamental and important than mutual harm both in quality and quantity. In this case, it is more fundamental and important to realize the fair principle of mutual benefit and equal benefit exchange than to avoid mutual harm and equal harm exchange: equal benefit exchange is a more fundamental and important type of justice.

To sum up, the so-called justice means giving people what they deserve, that is, returning or exchanging what they deserve. In the final analysis, it is the good deed of interest exchange: the good deed of equal benefit exchange and equal harm exchange is the positive and negative of justice; The so-called unfairness means giving people something they shouldn't, that is, an undeserved return or exchange. In the final analysis, it is the evil of unequal exchange of interests: the evil of unequal exchange of interests and the evil of hurting unequal exchange are both sides of injustice. This is the precise definition of justice.

100, briefly describing the basic principles that must be followed to do a good job in psychological counseling (1) the need to prevent mental illness and ensure students' mental health; (2) the need to improve students' psychological quality and promote their sound personality development; (3) Cooperate with and supplement the daily education and teaching work of the school.

Moral standards that psychological counseling must abide by (1) Psychological counselors shall not discriminate against visitors because of their gender, age, occupation, nationality, religious beliefs, values and other factors.

(2) Before establishing the consultation relationship, the psychological counselor must let the visitors know the nature and characteristics of psychological consultation, the possible limitations of this work and the rights and obligations of the visitors themselves.

(3) When working with visitors, psychological counselors should discuss and reach an agreement with them on the main points of work, and reach a written agreement with them when necessary (such as using some therapy).

(4) No relationship other than consultation should be created or established between the counselor and the visitor. Try to avoid double relationship (try not to establish consulting relationship with acquaintances, relatives and colleagues), don't take advantage of the trust of help seekers in consultants for personal gain, especially don't have indecent words and deeds to the opposite sex.

(5) When the psychological counselor thinks that he is not suitable for consulting the helper, he should explain it clearly to the helper with a responsible attitude and introduce him to another suitable counselor or doctor.

(six) psychological counselors should always strictly abide by the principle of confidentiality, the specific measures are as follows:

① Psychological counselors have the responsibility to explain the confidentiality principle of psychological counselors and the applicable limits of this principle to visitors;

(2) In psychological counseling, once visitors are found to be harmful to themselves or others, necessary measures must be taken to prevent accidents (relevant departments or family members should be notified when necessary), or other psychological counselors should be consulted, but the exposure of confidential information should be limited to a minimum;

③ Relevant information in psychological counseling, including case records, test data, letters, audio recordings, video recordings, etc., are professional materials and should be kept strictly confidential and not included in other materials;

④ Psychological counselors can record and video the consultation process only with the consent of the visitors. When discussing cases for professional needs, or using cases for teaching, scientific research, writing, etc., relevant information that may be used to identify helpers should be hidden.

⑤ Psychological counselors should designate appropriate places and personnel to keep records, diagnoses, notes or doctor's orders of psychological counseling services, and have the obligation of confidentiality.

6. When accepting inquiries from health, judicial and public security organs, psychological counselors shall not make false statements or reports.

(seven) psychological counselors should hang their business licenses, fees and professional qualification certificates of psychological counselors in a prominent position in psychological counseling service places.

(eight) psychological counselors and psychological counseling service places shall keep the psychological counseling places clean, hygienic, orderly and peaceful, and shall not interfere with public health and safety.

(nine) when the psychological counselor collects fees from the help-seekers, he shall issue a detailed list of fees and legal vouchers to the help-seekers.

(10) Psychological counselors shall not solicit business by improper means.

What is the only moral principle of organ transplantation? Moral principles of organ transplantation

The only principle is that

The most urgent advantage of cooperation

What were the moral principles pursued during the Cultural Revolution? Selfless.

The advantages are that the society is clear, the crime rate is extremely low, the income gap between people is not big, and there is almost no contradiction between the government and the people; The harm is to suppress the selfish desires of human nature, give a few people room to cheat and do evil, and the progress of social materialism is slow.