Climate change,justice and the right to development

The primary human rights documents of the United Nations claim that every human has a right to development, a right that also includes continuous improvement of each person's living conditions. On one interpretation, this implies a right to a never-ending improvement of living conditions. According to the author, this interpretation faces several counterintuitive implications. First, it seems reasonable that we cannot have a right to improvement without regard to environmental sustainability; improvements must instead focus on well-being, a concept that is partially unrelated to material improvements. Second, if development is a human right, there are several distributional problems with this right. The paper discusses three different responses to the idea that everybody has a right to continuous improvement and concludes that the best solution is to reject the idea that everyone has such a right. This does not imply that we must reject a right to a certain minimum level of well-being; it just means that this right cannot include claims for never-ending improvement.     

On medicine, culture, and children's basic interests: a reply to three critics

Margaret Mohrmann, Paul Lauritzen, and Sumner Twiss raise questions about my account of basic interests, liberal theory, and the challenges of multiculturalism as developed in Children, Ethics, and Modern Medicine. Their questions point to foundational issues regarding the justification and limitation of parental authority to make decisions on behalf of children in medical and other contexts. One of the central questions in that regard is whether adults' decisions deserve to be respected, especially when they seem contrary to a child's or adolescent's basic interests. Questions about respect, in turn, focus attention on other's decisions about what seems good for families and children, decisions that may be paternalistic or utilitarian. Such decisions are further complicated by a child's or adolescent's budding autonomy and need for respect and recognition. Pediatric bioethics grounded in an account of a child's basic interests produces a theory of negative and positive rights for assessing adults' actions in relation to children, especially (but not only) when adults demand respect in their expressions of care.     

Reliability and validity evidence for the French Psychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS) scores: Significance of a distinction between thwarting and satisfaction of basic psychological needs

ObjectivesThe goal of these studies was to provide evidence of the significance of a distinction between basic psychological need thwarting (BPNT) and satisfaction (BPNS) within a sport context. Studies 1a and 2 tested the score validity and reliability of the French PNTS (Psychological Need Thwarting Scale) for measuring BPNT for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Study 1b examined the relationships between BPNT and selected variables (athlete burnout and sport motivation) by controlling for BPNS.MethodParticipants in study 1 (N study 1a = 239; N study 1b = 132) and study 2 (N = 132) were adolescents athletes who completed the PNTS and other questionnaires. Data were analyzed with internal consistency, average variance extracted, composite reliability, confirmatory factor analyses (studies 1a and 2) and correlational analyses (studies 2 and 1b).DesignCross-sectional.ResultsResults of studies 1a and 2 showed that the 11-item 3-factor correlated structure of the PNTS fitted the data adequately. Multiple-group CFAs showed that the PNTS scores were partially invariant across the samples from studies 1a and 2. In study 2, BPNS positively correlated with self-determined forms of motivation and negatively correlated with controlled forms of motivation and/or athlete burnout whereas BPNT showed the opposite pattern of results. In study 1b, BPNT was associated with athlete burnout and sport motivation after BPNS was held constant.ConclusionsThis study provided support for the reliability and validity of the French PNTS scores (studies 1a and 2) and the incremental validity of BPNT (study 1b), supporting the distinction between BPNS and BPNT.