Animal Rights and the Problem of r-Strategists

Wild animal reproduction poses an important moral problem for animal rights theorists. Many wild animals give birth to large numbers of uncared-for offspring, and thus child mortality rates are far higher in nature than they are among human beings. In light of this reproductive strategy – traditionally referred to as the ‘r-strategy’ – does concern for the interests of wild animals require us to intervene in nature? In this paper, I argue that animal rights theorists should embrace fallibility-constrained interventionism: the view that intervention in nature is desirable but should be constrained by our ignorance of the inner workings of ecosystems. Though authors sometimes assume that large-scale intervention requires turning nature into an enormous zoo, I suggest an alternative. With sufficient research, a new form of gene editing called CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) promises to one day give us the capacity to intervene without perpetually interfering with wild animals’ liberties.     

Hyperactive and aggressive behaviors in childhood: Intertwined dimensions

The relationship between aggression and hyperactivity is unclear in childhood hyperkinesis. To examine the relationship between the two dimensions, a sample of 109 first-, second-, and third grade children who were rated as hyperactive were evaluated daily by their teachers for 12 consecutive school days on the Daily Behavior Checklist. Daily recordings were made on a total of 22 specific behaviors, 11 physically or verbally aggressive acts, and 11 acts of a restless or hyperactive nature. The Conners hyperactivity score correlated. 47 with daily aggression and .49 with daily hyperactivity. A subgroup of hyperactive children who exhibited both hyperactive and aggressive behaviors at rates greater than 98% of their classmates was selected. These children were rated significantly higher on the Conners scale than an alternate subgroup of hyperactive children who showed high rates of hyperactive but not aggressive behaviors. In view of heavy reliance on teacher ratings with the Conners scale in studies of hyperactivity, careful consideration of the potential confounding of hyperactivity and aggression is recommended. Implications for classification, longitudinal investigation, and evaluation of treatment of hyperactive children were discussed.     

The Ethic of Care vis-â-vis the Ethic of Rights: A Problem for Contemporary Moral Theory

Carol Gilligan has delineated two ethics, the ethic of rights and the ethic of care. In this article I argue that the two ethics are part of one overall system, the ethic of care functioning as a necessary base for the ethic of rights. 1 also argue that the system is seriously flawed. Because women are held accountable to both ethics and because the two ethics frequently conflict, women recurrently find themselves in a moral double bind.     

China and the Problem of Human Rights: Ancient Verities and Modern Realities

The six sections of the essay discuss recurrent issues relative to the modern advocacy of human rights and the vicissitudes of the Chinese response—universal standards versus cultural and historical particularity, individualism versus community, traditional Confucian ethics versus Western modernism, nativism versus foreign influence, the stability of the social order versus individual well-being, and the possibility of developing a view of rights a part of which is drawn from the Chinese philosophical tradition. The concluding segment examines historical conditions of law and religion and their relevance for contemporary discussion on human rights. By looking closely at selected classical texts and events, the essay offers both a sustained critique of Confucianism in its traditional formulation and a suggested attempt to re-interpret aspects of the tradition for the current situation.     

The Rights of Future Persons under Attack: Correlativity in the Non-Identity Problem

Philosophia - This paper aims at answering some of the objections to the NIP’s criticism of the idea of rights of future persons. Those objections usually adopt different perspectives...     

The Problem with “Caring” Human Rights

Although Daniel Engster's “caring” human rights are, on the surface, a compelling way to bring the concept of care into the international political realm, I argue they actually serve to perpetuate some of the same problems of mainstream human‐rights discourses. The problem is twofold. First, Engster's particular care theory relies on an uncritical acceptance of our dependence relations. It can, therefore, not only overlook how local and global institutions, norms, and the marketplace shape our relations of (inter)dependence, but also serve to further naturalize our current dependence relations. Second, Engster's caring human rights are only minimally feminist, which means that they do not pay attention to the way in which women's full and equal political participation is a necessary component to challenging and overcoming the oppression, marginalization, and exploitation of women and their caring labor worldwide. Although I am sympathetic to Engster's goals and some of his proposed policy solutions, I argue that we should not abandon the critical, feminist lens of care ethics in favor of “caring” human rights that cannot overcome the care critique of mainstream human‐rights discourses.     

A Permissive Theory of Territorial Rights

This article explores the justification of states' territorial rights. It starts by introducing three questions that all current theories of territorial rights attempt to answer: how to justify the right to settle, the right to exclude, and the right to settle and exclude with reference to a particular territory. It proposes a ‘permissive’ theory of territorial rights, arguing that the citizens of each state are entitled to the particular territory they collectively occupy, if and only if they are also politically committed to the establishment of a global political authority realizing just reciprocal relations. The article is developed by introducing some key features of the permissive theory and by explaining how such an account addresses the questions of settlement, exclusion and particularity in ways that significantly improve on existing rival accounts (most prominently: acquisition theories, legitimacy‐based theories and nationalist theories).     

A New Instrumental Theory of Rights

My goal in this paper is to advance a long-standing debate about the nature of moral rights. The debate focuses on the questions: In virtue of what do persons possess moral rights? What could explain the fact that they possess moral rights? The predominant sides in this debate are the status theory and the instrumental theory. I aim to develop and defend a new instrumental theory. I take as my point of departure the influential view of Joseph Raz, which for all its virtues is unable to meet the challenge to the instrumentalist that I will address: the problem of justifying the enforcement of rights. I then offer a new instrumental theory in which duties are grounded on individuals’ interests, and individuals rights exist in virtue of the duties owed to them. I argue that my theory enables the instrumentalist to give the right sort of justification for enforcing rights.     

The Problem of Debt‐for‐Nature Swaps from a Human Rights Perspective

At first blush, debt‐for‐nature swaps seem to provide win‐win solutions to the looming problems of environmental degradation and extreme poverty. So, one might naturally assume that they are morally permissible, if not obligatory. This article will argue, however, that debt‐for‐nature swaps are sometimes morally questionable, if not morally impermissible. It suggests that some criticisms of traditional (economic) conditions placed on loans to poor countries also apply to the (environmental) conditionality implicit in such swaps. The article's main theoretical contribution is to suggest a general argumentative strategy for posing a challenge to the moral acceptability of many seemingly innocuous, or even apparently good, policies in the real world. Its discussion of how we should respond to seemingly tragic dilemmas (e.g. between protecting nature and respecting human rights) may also be of general interest.     

比较应用题的问题表征策略研究

采用2×2×4三因素混合实验设计,对不同年级学生解比较应用题过程中的各种指标进行分析,结果表明:学生解比较应用题时的问题表征策略存在显著的年级差异;数学成绩优生、差生存在不同的问题表征策略;题目呈现方式对学生的问题表征策略有显著影响。     

Welfare Rights and Conflicts of Rights

The fact that welfare rights – rights to food, shelter and medical care – will conflict with one another is often taken to be good reason to exclude welfare rights from the catalogue of genuine rights. Rather than respond to this objection by pointing out that all rights conflict, welfare rights proponents need to take the conflicts objection seriously. The existence of potentially conflicting and more weighty normative considerations counts against a claim’s status as a genuine right. To think otherwise would be to threaten the peremptory force – and hence the analytical integrity – of rights. The conflicts objection is made more pressing once we have conceded that welfare rights give people entitlements to what are potentially scarce goods. I argue that welfare rights can survive the conflicts objection if, and only if, we take scarcity into account in the framing of a given welfare right. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Nuffield Political Theory Workshop in Oxford and the Canadian Philosophical Association Congress 2006 at York University. I am grateful to Adam Swift, David Miller, Idil Boran, Sarah McCallum and two anonymous referees for their comments, and to the Economic and Social Research Council for research funding.