环境伦理视阈中的分配正义原则

分配正义不仅存在于收入分配领域,还存在于自然资源在同代人或不同代人之间的分配过程之中。分配正义是人与自然、人与人之间和谐协调与可持续发展的伦理基础。与一般意义的分配正义主要是指对一定社会结构、社会关系和社会现象的一种伦理认定和道德评价相区别,环境伦理视阈中的分配正义主要体现自然资源在国家之间的公平分配、国内的公平分配、代际之间的公平分配、人类的需要与环境本身之间公平分配等层面,概括地讲,也就是代内正义、代际正义和种际正义。     

论制度性消极义务及其道德重要性

义务可分为积极义务和消极义务,后者比前者更重要;消极义务又可分为制度性消极义务和非制度性消极义务.制度性消极义务要求制度参与者捍卫正义制度,改革不正义制度.那些制定和参与了不正义制度,给他者带来了严重伤害,自己却从中获得巨大利益的个人或群体,违背了制度性消极义务,应承担相应责任.不正义的制度给社会成员带来的伤害远大于个人间的侵犯,因而制度性消极义务具有更重要的道德意义.     

社群主义的全球正义困境:以戴维·米勒为中心的讨论

戴维·米勒所建构的现实主义的全球正义理念虽然为民族自决和对民族同胞的偏爱情感提供了空间,但其理论仍然面临许多难题:作为其全球正义关怀之终极单元的人的概念(即需要帮助的受动者和具有选择能力的行动者)既缺乏足够的规范内涵,也不具有“自由而平等的世界公民”概念所具有的那种普遍性,难以成为全球正义理念的人学基础;综合个人道德与制度伦理双重视角的全球正义进路误解了全球正义的约束对象,把基于自然人格的自然义务与基于法理人格的人为义务混为一谈;强调国内领域与国际领域之截然二分的情境主义的二元论正义观忽视了国内正义与全球正义之间的本质联系,低估了人类道德进步的潜能。     

法律的本源道德与正义原则

社会的本源道德是蕴涵在物质生产关系中的伦理属性 ,是一种体现社会发展必然规律、以权利义务关系表达、本体与价值相统一的伦理范型。法律正义就是社会本源道德在法律制度中的体现。如果说 ,社会主义市场经济的伦理属性是当代中国社会的本源道德 ,是一种以“为人民服务”为宗旨、权利与义务相统一的伦理范型 ,那么它便是各种具体社会制度道德的根据 ,并以不同的形式体现在不同的制度中。体现在社会主义法律制度中 ,就是权利本位、公益优先和人民主权三大正义原则     

论政治伦理的正义主题

本文结合政治学和伦理学有关原理 ,探讨了政治伦理的主题 :正义。政治作为一种社会关系现象 ,同样是一种伦理现象 ,政治的公共权力性质决定了它以实现正义为伦理目标 ;从正义的性质及内容等方面看 ,正义根本上具有政治性 ;正义是政治道德的基本原则 ,统摄诸如自由、平等和民主等具体政治道德规范 ;政治的正义目标实现要以法治与德治的结合为保证     

社会正义是对健康的最好保障

健康是公民的一项基本权利,社会或政府有义务保障公民的这一权利.公民的健康除了由医疗卫生和生理因素决定外,还由诸多社会因素决定.这些健康的社会决定因素所反映的实际上是社会正义问题,因此要保障公民的健康权利,最根本的是要营造一个正义的社会环境,并建立一个正义的社会保障支持系统.     

论法律正义的几个基本问题--兼与周旺生教授商榷

法律正义,是指体现在实在法的原则和规范中以及法律适用过程中的正义,是实质正义和形式正义的总和.罗尔斯的四个阶段说揭示了社会正义原则向法律实质正义的转化过程,这个模式同样适用于其他正义标准向法律正义的转化.法律正义不是介于法和正义两者之间"第三种规范",它既在法律之内,又在道德(正义)之中.法律正义的结构体系问题旨在探讨法律正义的内在结构即分类、相互关系和具体内容等问题.通过对法律正义的结构体系的多视角全方位的考察,我们将对法律正义形成一个更全面透彻的认识.     

当代道德生活中的底线伦理

当代道德生活中底线伦理问题的提出,有着深刻的社会根源和学科基础。对于底线伦理问题的考察,必须把它纳入到关于整个社会道德生活的理论框架中去。底线伦理确立社会制度的基本道德和个人行为的基本规范,成为解决重大道德问题的共同信念的伦理基础,又受到在根基和多元互动中的终极关怀的支撑和超越,有机地形成了当代中国社会的道德结构。作为个人行为规范的底线伦理的保障,主要有待于文化生态的完善;至于作为社会制度道德的底线伦理的保障,则呈现出更复杂的状态:以合理界定国家和公民之间相互性的权利与义务关系为核心,处理好和平、自由和正义这三个目标之间的关系。     

论亚里士多德的政治正义

当代西方政治哲学中,罗尔斯以及由其引发的正义论思考是近代权利正义论的延伸。对亚里士多德古典正义论的追问和阐释,有助于深刻反省权利正义论的局限。不同于权利正义将政治法律与道德二分,亚里士多德的德性正义论以个人灵魂德性的"内在善"为基础,主张通过政体正义和法律正义的制度方式实现共同体的"外在善",通过培育友爱的德性和公民教化实现公民和谐,以弥补政治正义作为制度疗法的短板。德治与法治相结合是亚里士多德政治正义思想中践行中庸之道的根本体现。     

社会正义是对健康的最好保障

健康是公民的一项基本权利,社会或政府有义务保障公民的这一权利。公民的健康除了由医疗卫生和生理因素决定外,还由诸多社会因素决定。这些健康的社会决定因素所反映的实际上是社会正义问题,因此要保障公民的健康权利,最根本的是要营造一个正义的社会环境,并建立一个正义的社会保障支持系统。     

社会公平:构建社会主义和谐社会的伦理基础

社会公平是社会主义最核心的价值追求,是构建社会主义和谐社会的伦理基础。社会公平是当代社会经济发展的基本理念,也是一个由机会平等、按贡献分配以及社会调节等原则组成的基本规则体系,具体表现为权利公平、机会公平、规则公平和分配结果的相对公平。在社会转型时期,必须坚持社会公平原则,对社会的有限资源和权利义务进行有效而合理的配置和安排,才能建立公正合理的社会经济生活秩序,建设一个经济繁荣、政治文明、社会秩序稳定、人民安居乐业的和谐社会。     

Religious and/or Spiritual Social Justice Advocacy: Guidance From the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies

The Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (MSJCC; Ratts, Singh, Nassar-McMillan, Butler, & McCullough, 2015) provide recommendations for social justice advocacy through a socioecological lens. The authors conceptualize and apply the MSJCC to inform counselor engagement in social justice advocacy for an often-neglected area of diversity: religion and/or spirituality. Practice and ethical examples, considerations, and recommendations related to religion and/or spirituality in MSJCC-compatible social justice advocacy are provided.     

Advocating Worker Justice

Catholic moral theology possesses a number of tools that can be employed to promote worker justice. Some of these tools, such as Catholic social teaching on solidarity and workers’ rights, have been used to this end before. However, advocates of workers’ rights have seldom utilized other concepts, such as cooperation in evil, scandal, and evangelization. This essay provides a theoretical introduction to several tools in the “toolkit” of Catholic ethicists, engaging contemporary scholarship on them. It then applies the concepts to two cases in order to demonstrate their usefulness in the struggle for worker justice. Both cases involve Catholic universities, which means the ethical concepts introduced from the Catholic moral tradition should have normative status for these institutions. The first case entails a divestment campaign at the University of Notre Dame. The second case confronts the unjust treatment of adjunct faculty members at Catholic colleges and universities.     

Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Social Justice Scale (SJS)

The study describes the development of the Social Justice Scale (SJS). Practitioners, educators, students, and other members of the community differ on their attitudes and values regarding social justice. It is important to assess, not only individuals' attitudes and values around social values, but also other constructs that might be related to social justice behaviors. The implication of Ajzen in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50:179-211, (1991) theory of planned behavior suggests that attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and social norms predict intentions, which then lead to behaviors. A scale was designed to measure social justice-related values, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and intentions based on a four-factor conception of Ajzen's theory. Confirmatory factor analysis and analyses for reliability and validity were used to test the properties of the scale.     

Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects of Domestic Violence Policies on Social Norms

To be effective, criminal justice policies should affect the underlying social norms for which the policies were enacted. This study sought to determine whether public perceptions of criminal justice policies on domestic violence affected social norms. Two waves of data were collected via a telephone survey where a random probability sample of 973 residents was drawn from 4 communities. A structural equation model was tested and confirmed. Results provided strong support for the hypothesis that perceptions of criminal justice policies have direct effects on attitudes toward criminal justice response, and indirect effects on victim-blaming attitudes, both underlying social norms related to domestic violence. The enactment of criminal justice policies, therefore, may have an impact beyond victims and perpetrators and lead to a transformation of the community through the emergence of new social norms. Public awareness campaigns designed to disseminate criminal justice policies may be instrumental in provoking social change.     

Questions of Athletic Excellence and Justice in Sport

This essay delineates and analyzes two kinds of questions that sport ethicists tend to ask: (1) questions about athletic excellence and (2) questions about justice. To pass ethical judgements when delving into questions concerning athletic excellence, sportspeople rely largely on a sport’s internal values, primary skills, or sport-specific athletic excellences. In contrast, questions about justice do not and should not include the reference or application of principles derived from the nature of a sport. Instead, sportspeople must refer to general theories, most often based on the rights and obligations of fellow citizens. There are multiple benefits to pointing out this distinction. First, it can help sportspeople and sport philosophers recognize the normative standards most appropriate within specific debates. Second, the distinction may explain why some disputes in sport philosophy remained unresolved. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, an awareness of the differences between these types of questions enables us to pose a further query. To which of the two discourses about sport ethics should sport philosophers lend the majority of their efforts? By adopting Susan Okin’s analysis of the role of morality in families, this paper suggests that questions about justice in sport carry greater moral import and should be resolved prior to questions of athletic excellence.     

Hobbes's Account of Distributive Justice as Equity

This paper examines the rationale for and grounds and implications of Hobbes's redefinition of distributive justice as equity. I argue that this unprecedented reformulation served to ensure the justness of distributive laws. Hobbes acknowledges that the sovereign can distribute rights and goods iniquitously by failing to treat citizens as equals. However, he insists that improper allocations are not unjust, properly speaking – they do not `wrong' citizens. To support this claim, Hobbes puts forth the un-Aristotelian maxim that merit in distributive justice is due by grace alone. You deserve what the sovereign gives you: there is no desert prior to and independent of his allocation of rights. For Hobbes, distributive justice does not track but create merit. It follows that distributive laws cannot fail to give what is due (which would be unjust). This paper proceeds to analyze the nature of the limits equity sets to the apportionment of goods. I argue that these limits are moral and purely procedural: citizens cannot invoke equity to claim a fair share of the goods distributed. Thanks to Hobbes's redefinition of distributive justice, the justness of the sovereign's conduct, and hence his legal immunity, remains intact.     

仁慈抑或正义——现代社会保障的道德基础

社会保障作为一项社会安全制度 ,需要道德的辩护与支持。仁慈因其非约束性、等级次第性并带有施舍色彩的天然弱点 ,使其不能成为现代社会保障制度的道德基础 ,而正义则以其“应得”和“法度”的内涵获得了构成社会保障道德根基的资格。然而 ,正义的社会保障制度 ,仍需仁慈为其运行提供必要的道德心理支持。     

Religious Networking Organizations and Social Justice: An Ethnographic Case Study

The current study provides an innovative examination of how and why religious networking organizations work for social justice in their local community. Similar to a coalition or community coordinating council, religious networking organizations are formal organizations comprised of individuals from multiple religious congregations who consistently meet to organize around a common goal. Based on over a year and a half of ethnographic participation in two separate religious networking organizations focused on community betterment and social justice, this study reports on the purpose and structure of these organizations, how each used networking to create social capital, and how religion was integrated into the organizations' social justice work. Findings contribute to the growing literature on social capital, empowering community settings, and the unique role of religious settings in promoting social justice. Implications for future research and practice also are discussed.     

家长式领导与组织公正感的关系

以428名企事业单位员工为调查对象,采用问卷法,探讨了家长式领导与组织公正感的关系,结果表明：（1）仁慈领导对组织公正感各维度有显著的积极影响;德行领导对组织公正感各维度有显著的积极影响;权威领导对领导公正有显著的消极影响;（2）在分配公正、程序公正上,德行与权威领导有显著负交互效应;在领导公正、领导解释上,仁慈与权威领导有显著负交互效应。最后,对研究的理论和实践意义作了探讨,并提出了未来的研究方向