Rawls on the maximin rule and distributive justice

Philosophical Studies -     

Rawls on Human Rights: A Review Essay

In this essay, I first evaluate the conceptual analysis of human rights by Wilfried Hinsch and Markus Stepanians. Next I criticize Allen Buchanan’s claim that Rawls did not address basic human interests/capabilities theories of human nature. I argue Buchanan is doubly mistaken when he claims that John Rawls sought to avoid such theories because they are comprehensive doctrines. Then I evaluate David Reidy’s defense of Rawls, while questioning his efforts to show how Rawls’s list of human rights could be expanded. Finally, I accept James Nickel’s argument that Rawls has tied human rights too closely to intervention on their behalf. However, I reject his, and by implication Rawls’s, refusal to accept a two-tiered approach to human rights.     

孔子与亚里士多德的朋友观之比较

本文首先考察了朋友概念的历史变化,然后比较了友爱和仁两个基本概念,这些是全文的铺垫。本文主要从“信”和“乐”两个方面比较了孔子与亚里士多德的朋友观。“信”为友道之基,这是《论语》强调“信”的原因所在;亚里士多德认为不同类型的朋友“信”的情况不同,有的无“信”可言,有的靠法律来保证,有的靠道德来保证,有的则是朋友本身应有之义。朋友为人类生活带来快乐,孔子认为这种快乐是“仁道之乐”;亚里士多德认为是“理性之乐”。比较有助于我们认识两位大师的伦理、政治以及哲学思想。     

孔子与亚里士多德的朋友观之比较

Before and during the times of Confucius and Aristotle, the concept of friendship had very different implications. This paper compares Confucius’ with Aristotle’s thoughts on friendship from two perspectives: xin 信 (fidelity, faithfulness) and le 乐 (joy). The Analects emphasizes the xin as the basis of friendship. Aristotle holds that there are three kinds of friends and corresponding to them are three types of friendship. In the friendship for the sake of pleasure, there is no xin; in the legal form of friendship for the sake of utility, xin is guaranteed by law; and in the moral form of friendship for the sake of utility, xin is guaranteed by morality; in the friendship for the sake of virtue, xin is an indispensable part. Both thinkers believe friends can bring joy to human life. According to Confucius, it is the joy of rendao 仁道 (benevolence), whereas for Aristotle, it is the joy of Reason. There are many commonalities and differences between the two. The commonalities reveal some inner links between Confucian rendao and Aristotelian Reason. It seems that the differences between rendao and Reason are the differences between moral reason and logical reason. The comparative study is helpful for us to understand the two masters’ ethics, politics and philosophy. Translated from Lunlixue Yanjiu 伦理学研究 (Research in Ethics), 2006, (1): 47–52     

A Just Global Economy: In Defense of Rawls

In The Law of Peoples, John Rawls does not discuss justice and the global economy at great length or in great detail. What he does say has not been well-received. The prevailing view seems to be that what Rawls says in The Law of Peoples regarding global economic justice is both inconsistent with and a betrayal of his own liberal egalitarian commitments, an unexpected and unacceptable defense of the status quo. This view is, I think, mistaken. Rawls’s position on global or international economic justice is richer, more nuanced, and generally more compelling than his critics have been willing to acknowledge. My aim in this essay is to sympathetically set out, and then defend against two common families of objection to, Rawls’s position on global or international economic justice. Objections of the first sort reject Rawls’s position as inadequately attentive to the material and economic interests of individual persons worldwide. Objections of the second sort reject it as inadequately attentive to the material and economic interests of well-ordered peoples. Throughout the paper I develop several arguments implicit in The Law of Peoples but not well-developed there as well as offer some additional arguments of my own consistent with the spirit of The Law of Peoples and Rawls’s work more generally. I conclude with some brief remarks expressing two worries I have about Rawls’s position – one concerning global public goods, the other concerning the formation of a morally adequate and effective political will within the international context under contemporary conditions. I wish to thank Alyssa Bernstein, Allen Buchanan, Samuel Freeman, John Hardwig, John Mandle, Rex Martin, Jim Nickel, Walter Riker, Kok-Chor Tan, and Leif Wenar for helpful comments or instructive conversation regarding earlier drafts of this paper.     

Procedural justice and layoff survivors' commitment: a quantitative review

Layoffs are common in today's organizations. Most studies that have examined the correlation between procedural justice and the organizational commitment of layoff survivors have yielded positive correlations, but the magnitude of the correlations varies widely. This study is the first to estimate the population correlation and to identify the primary sources that cause variation in the correlation across studies. The results indicated that justice and commitment correlations can always be expected to be positive. Based on a total sample size of 9080 individuals, the estimated mean population correlation was .34. Variation was primarily explained by attributes of the justice measure where multiple items scales and scales composed of both interactional and procedural justice items yielded higher correlations than single item measures. Therefore, it is important that employers recognize the substantial assuaging affect that procedural and interactional justice can have on survivors' organizational commitment.     

罗尔斯的建构主义解读

在批判道德实在论和道德相对主义的基础上,罗尔斯提出了道德建构主义的方法。道德建构主义的方法认为正义原则是道德主体在原初状态的程序下建构的结果。与道德实在论相对,道德建构主义主张正义原则的建构特点;与道德相对主义相对,道德建构主义主张正义原则的客观性。罗尔斯对于道德建构主体的设定具有高度同质化的特点,对于道德客观性的论述也存在一定的不足。     

Rawls and Research on Cognitively Impaired Patients: A Reply to Maio

In his paper, “The Relevance of Rawls’ Principle of Justice for Research on Cognitively Impaired Patients” (Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 23 (2002):45–53), Giovanni Maio has developed athought-provoking argument for the permissibility of non-therapeutic research on cognitively impaired patients. Maio argues that his conclusion follows from the acceptance of John Rawls’s principles of justice, specifically, Rawls’s “liberty principle” Maio has misinterpreted Rawls’s “libertyprinciple” – correctly interpreted it does notsupport non-therapeutic research on cognitivelyimpaired patients. Three other ‘Rawlsian’ arguments are suggested by Maio’s discussion –two “self-respect” arguments and a “presumed consent” argument – but none of them are convincing. However, an alternative argument developed from Rawls’s discussion of “justice in health care” in his most recent book, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, may justify certain kinds of non-therapeutic research on some cognitively impaired patients in special circumstances. We should not expect anything more permissive from a liberal theory of justice. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.