The autonomy–community balance and the equity–law distinction: Anarchy's task for psychological jurisprudence

Anarchist political theory holds that efforts to achieve an optimal balance between individual autonomy and psychological sense of community are often hindered rather than helped by institutionalized legal principles and practices. Despite law's dominance, echoes of earlier forms of social organization more in keeping with optimal well-being may be identified in legal doctrine related to such topics as the distinction between law and equity, jury nullification, and the Ninth Amendment, all of which have been subject to much criticism. Adherents of psychological jurisprudence concerned with the subjective experience of law and with social justice should take seriously the anarchist position that radical social change is needed to help society progress in a direction more suited to basic human needs and values.     

An Agency‐Based Capability Theory of Justice

The capability approach is one of the main contenders in the field of theorizing social justice. Each citizen is entitled to a set of basic capabilities. But which are these? Martha Nussbaum formulated a set of ten central capabilities. Amartya Sen argued they should be selected in a process of public reasoning. Critics object that the Nussbaum‐approach is too perfectionist and the Sen‐approach is too proceduralist. This paper presents a third alternative: a substantive but non‐perfectionist capability theory of justice. It presents a two‐level concept of individual agency as connected to social practices. It then argues basic capabilities are those necessary to for the agency necessary to navigate freely and autonomously between different social practices.     

Disrupting the Luxury of Despair: Justice and Peace Education in Contexts of Relative Privilege

Abstract. The Iliff School of Theology established a justice and peace concentration within its curriculum to respond to the challenges of racism, class and economic exploitation, sexism, and militarism by fostering social analysis and attending to the contributions of religious thought and resources to the struggles of social change. Within an institution and with a student body who both tend to be relatively privileged in terms of class and racial or ethnic background, one of the persistent issues in teaching justice and peace studies has been addressing the emergence of guilt, anger, and despair as course content challenges students (and faculty) to relinquish self‐understandings, historical understandings of their religious tradition and national context, and inadequate theological and faith formation shaped by dominant narratives that ignore social realities of oppression. This pedagogical challenge has encouraged multiple professors to develop unique pedagogical approaches to educating students about justice issues in this context. This paper will draw on the insights of these approaches, in conversation with literature‐based analysis, to describe the temptations students experience when learning about justice and peace in contexts of privilege. This paper also describes the pedagogical practices that emerged in this particular context, and the failures and limitations of these practices for individual and institutional transformation.     

Current social psychological perspectives on justice

In the context of a comparative review of four recently published books on justice, the author provides an assessment of the current state of the field. He specifically discusses the role of equity theory, the variety of distributive principles, the role of justice in social behaviour, the broadening of perspectives in the field, and some remaining gaps and weaknesses in the literature. In concluding, the work of the leading theorists in the area is evaluated.     

Restorative justice and the human rights of offenders: Convergences and divergences

Restorative justice has gained significant momentum as a justice reform movement within the past three decades, and it is estimated that up to one hundred countries worldwide utilize restorative justice practices. Although claims about the role of restorative justice in protecting human rights are repeatedly made in the restorative justice literature, they are seldom supported by empirical evidence or a thorough analysis of human rights and their justification. In this paper, we discuss how the assumptions underpinning restorative justice practices impact on offenders' human rights, and their points of convergence and divergence. We argue that while these assumptions can protect certain offender rights, they may violate others. We finish with some suggestions about how to reconcile the tensions between human rights and restorative justice, focusing in particular on the relationship between community needs and individual well-being.     

休谟的经济正义思想

休谟从分析人类获取生活资料的方式入手,认为正义是一种社会契约,是尊重个人财产权的人为美德;他提出了正义的三大法则,即财产稳定地占有的法则,根据同意转移所有物的法则,履行许诺的法则,并强调政府在落实经济正义三大法则过程中的作用。休谟的经济正义思想反映了市场经济的某些一般特征,对于今天我们研究中国社会的经济正义问题仍有不可替代的借鉴价值。     

Repairing the rupture: Restorative justice and the rehabilitation of offenders

Restorative justice is a social justice movement that aims to deal with consequences of crime through repairing and restoring relationships of three key stakeholders: victims, offenders, and communities. Unfortunately, it is often unclear where offender rehabilitation fits within the constructs of repair and reintegration that drive this justice paradigm. An analysis of the relationship between restorative justice theory and offender rehabilitation principles reveals tensions between the two normative frameworks and a lack of appreciation that correctional treatment programs have a legitimate role alongside restorative practices. First, we outline the basic tenets of the Risk–Need–Responsivity Model and the Good Lives Model in order to provide a brief overview of two recent models of offender rehabilitation. We then consider the claims made by restorative justice proponents about correctional rehabilitation programs and their role in the criminal justice system. We conclude that restorative justice and rehabilitation models are distinct, although overlapping, normative frameworks and have different domains of application in the criminal justice system, and that it is a mistake to attempt to blend them in any robust sense.     

Public Opinion and Political Philosophy: The Relation between Social-Scientific and Philosophical Analyses of Distributive Justice

This paper considers the relation between philosophical discussions of, and social-scientific research into popular beliefs about, distributive justice. The first part sets out the differences and tensions between the two perspectives, identifying considerations which tend to lead adherents of each discipline to regard the other as irrelevant to its concerns. The second discusses four reasons why social scientists might benefit from philosophy: problems in identifying inconsistency, the fact that non-justice considerations might underlie distributive judgments, the way in which different principles of justice can yield the same concrete distributive judgments, and the ambiguity of key terms. The third part distinguishes and evaluates three versions of the claim that normative theorising about justice can profit from empirical research into public opinion: that its findings are food for thought, that they amount to feasibility constraints, and that they are constitutive of normatively justified principles of justice. The view that popular opinion about justice has a strongly constitutive role to play in justifying principles of distributive justice stricto sensu is rejected, but it is argued that what the people think (and what they can reasonably be expected to come to think) on distributive matters can be an important factor for the political theorist to take into account, for reasons of legitimacy, or feasibility, or both.     

When Structure and Meaning Break DownTaking Responsibility in Downsizing

Based on knowledge about individual stress, identity, and psychological dynamics in crisis situations, social responsibility in downsizing is discussed. The concepts of ethics and perceived fairness are discussed, based on four case studies. The richness of the empirical situations points to a need for a holistic view on downsizing and social responsibility, covering individual as well as organizational aspects. Taking interactional justice into account together with a more critical view of the principles used is suggested. Finally, the idea of time and timing is elaborated in relation to justice.     

Transforming school ensemble instruction through spiritually informed teaching practices

The transformative experiences that could be central to learning are curiously absent from American school music education. Students are motivated through competition and the goal of most programmes is flawless large ensemble performance. This paper describes a music programme in which the daily instructional practices have been modified and influenced by an outreach programme in which the students taught socially and economically challenged children of similar age. This programme was developed by a teacher with a deep sense of faith. His spiritually informed teaching practices emphasise the same principles of social justice espoused by secular educational philosophers. Parallels between spiritual and educational philosophies and a discussion of the transformations experienced by students conclude the paper.     

Downward mobility and Rawlsian justice

Technological and societal changes have made downward social and economic mobility a pressing issue in real-world politics. This article argues that a Rawlsian society would not provide any special protection against downward mobility, and would act rightly in declining to provide such protection. Special treatment for the downwardly mobile can be grounded neither in Rawls’s core principles—the basic liberties, fair equality of opportunity, and the difference principle—nor in other aspects of Rawls’s theory (the concept of legitimate expectations, the idea of a life plan, the distinction between allocative and distributive justice, or the distinction between ideal and nonideal theory). Instead, a Rawlsian society is willing to sacrifice particular individuals’ ambitions and plans for the achievement of justice, and offers those who lose out from justified change no special solicitude over and above the general solicitude extended to all. Rather than guaranteeing the maintenance of any particular individual or group’s economic position, it provides all of its members—the upwardly mobile, the downwardly mobile, and the immobile—a form of security that is at once more generous and more limited: that they will receive the liberties, opportunities, and resources promised by the principles of justice.     

Global Distributive Justice

The paper discusses the problem of global distributive justice. It proposes to distinguish between principles for the domestic and for the global or intersocietal distribution of wealth. It is argued that there may be a plurality of partly diverging domestic conceptions of distributive justice, not all of which need to be liberal egalitarian conceptions. It is maintained, however, that principles regulating the intersocietal distribution of wealth have to be egalitarian principles. This claim is defended against Rawls's argument in The Law of Peoples that egalitarian principles of distributive justice should not be applied globally. Moreover, it is explained in detail, why Rawls's "duty of assistance to burdened societies" cannot be an appropriate substitute for a global principle of distributive justice.     

Prioritizing Rights in the Social Justice Curriculum

The biggest problem facing schools having social justice curricula, beyond implementation of a programme, I claim, is the problem of justification: what grounds what in social justice and how do we make this manifest to ourselves and to the curricula? If we cannot address this, then social justice curricula are doomed to begging the question. I claim that a ranking of human rights is not only necessary to adjudicate competing claims for social justice and at the same time, thwart interference with already agreed-upon human rights: it is necessary for any curriculum of social justice for schools. That is to say, curricular programs of social justice cannot justify social practices that interfere with human rights, nor can they teach otherwise than this. Due attention to the violation of human rights is necessary, I shall argue, and must be central in the discussion of education for social justice.     

Towards a Critical Theory of Transnational Justice

This paper argues for a conception of transnational justice that provides an alternative to globalist and statist views. In light of an analysis of the transnational context of justice, a critical theory is suggested that addresses the multiple relations of injustice and domination to be found in this context. Based on a universal, individual right to reciprocal and general justification, this theory argues for justifiable social and political relations both within and between states. In both of these contexts, it distinguishes between minimal and maximal justice and stresses the interdependence of domestic and transnational justice. On both levels, minimal justice calls for a discursive structure of justification, whereas maximal justice implies a fully justified basic social structure.     

The Aim of a Theory of Justice

Amartya Sen argues that for the advancement of justice identification of ‘perfect’ justice is neither necessary nor sufficient. He replaces ‘perfect’ justice with comparative justice. Comparative justice limits itself to comparing social states with respect to degrees of justice. Sen’s central thesis is that identifying ‘perfect’ justice and comparing imperfect social states are ‘analytically disjoined’. This essay refutes Sen’s thesis by demonstrating that to be able to make adequate comparisons we need to identify and integrate criteria of comparison. This is precisely the aim of a theory of justice (such as John Rawls’s theory): identifying, integrating and ordering relevant principles of justice. The same integrated criteria that determine ‘perfect’ justice are needed to be able to adequately compare imperfect social states. Sen’s alternative approach, which is based on social choice theory, is incapable of avoiding contrary, indeterminate or incoherent directives where plural principles of justice conflict.     

B. F. Skinner's Utopian Vision: Behind and Beyond Walden Two

This paper addresses B. F. Skinner's utopian vision for enhancing social justice and human well-being in his 1948 novel, Walden Two. In the first part, we situate the book in its historical, intellectual, and social context of the utopian genre, address critiques of the book's premises and practices, and discuss the fate of intentional communities patterned on the book. The central point here is that Skinner's utopian vision was not any of Walden Two's practices, except one: the use of empirical methods to search for and discover practices that worked. In the second part, we describe practices in Skinner's book that advance social justice and human well-being under the themes of health, wealth, and wisdom, and then show how the subsequent literature in applied behavior analysis supports Skinner's prescience. Applied behavior analysis is a measure of the success of Skinner's utopian vision: to experiment.     

罗尔斯“分配的正义观”与诺齐克“持有的正义观”对照研究

分配正当性的根据是什么 ?人的基本权利与平等的要件如何分配才是符合正义的 ?罗尔斯和诺齐克从两个向度上对此作了深入研究。罗尔斯从平等的权利出发 ,主张用“公平正义的两个原则”来取代功利主义 ,认为除非有充足理由证明应当不平等 ,否则就应当平等。并要求依据“公平的正义原则”分配公共资源和自由体系 ;诺齐克从人的不可剥夺的权利出发 ,认为除非有充足理由证明应当平等 ,否则就应当不平等 ,通过“资格”理论确立“持有”的正当性。在功利主义、财产权、国家的作用、自由平等、分配模式和社会稳定的意义等方面 ,罗尔斯与诺齐克的观点也各有契合与对立。     

“Family Matters”: A Conceptual Framework for Genetic Testing in Children

Genetic testing in minor children presents a complex ethical and social problem. Current guidelines state that genetic testing of children is recommended only under circumstances where a clear medical or psychosocial benefit to the child can be demonstrated. Because of the difficulty in determining a psychosocial benefit, the discussion about genetic testing of minors ultimately tends to focus on who has the right to make the decision and whose right to autonomy is jeopardized, the parent's or the child's, when there is no identified medical benefit. Historically, a western bioethics paradigm, Principlism, has been used to guide genetic counseling sessions and genetic-testing guidelines for minors. This bioethics paradigm is guided by the principles: respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Genetic testing in children, when viewed through a traditional bioethics filter is limited by its focus on the individual because children are not only individuals, they are also integral parts of a larger social context, that of their family. Because this bioethics paradigm places a strong emphasis on individual autonomy, the family's beliefs and values and the parents' concern for their children may be overshadowed by the medical community's attempt to preserve the child's "right" to an autonomous decision about genetic testing. The purpose of this paper is to present a theoretical and ethics-based conceptual framework that may be useful in the development of genetic counseling interventions.     

Infusing culture in career counseling

This article introduces the culture‐infused career counselling (CICC) model. Six principles are foundational to a tripartite model emphasizing cultural self‐awareness, awareness of client cultural identities, and development of a culturally sensitive working alliance. The core competencies ensure the cultural validity and relevance of career counseling practices for all clients and shift the focus of career practice to support social justice action.     

Religious Congregations and Social Justice Participation: A Multilevel Examination of Social Processes and Leadership

Religious congregations have potential to be mediating structures for social justice participation. However, research has yet to examine the specific social processes or leadership characteristics within congregations that may promote social justice participation. In this study, we use data from 176,901 participants nested within 1,938 congregations to test how social processes (i.e., religious attendance at worship services, extra-worship participation, bonding social capital, a congregational norm for justice) and leadership characteristics (i.e., leader modeling of justice, horizontal leadership style) predict personal social justice involvement through the congregation (i.e., participation in social justice activities sponsored by the congregation) as well as personal social justice involvement outside the congregation (i.e., participation in social justice activities not sponsored by the congregation). We use multilevel logistic regression to examine these social processes and leadership characteristics at both individual and congregational levels of analysis. Results showed distinct patterns of associations at individual and congregational levels of analysis and that different social processes and leadership characteristics predicted personal social justice participation through or outside the congregation. These findings reveal the importance of social processes and leadership characteristics in understanding how congregations may mediate social justice participation. Implications for community psychology research and practiced also are discussed.