幼儿对所有权权利的理解

对物品的所有权意味着所有者对所有物具有多重权利, 如触碰、使用、更改、追踪和转移等。研究发现, 3岁幼儿就能理解, 所有者对自己的物品具有触碰权和使用权, 而他人不具有。但是, 他们理解所有物的更改权、追踪权和转移权, 却相对滞后。这提示对不同所有权权利表征的发展可能是分化的。此外, 3岁幼儿还理解所有者具有赋予他人使用所有物的权利, 还会积极维护这种权利, 并对阻止权利实施的行为表示抗议, 说明他们也能理解二级所有权权利。为什么幼儿对不同所有权权利的表征会出现分化, 其背后的机制需要未来研究的探索。此外, 某些公共物品(如公共汽车)本身存在着所有权权利相分离的情况, 幼儿是如何表征的, 也值得我们进行研究。不同文化对所有权权利的侧重不同, 提示我们有必要对所有权权利认知的发展进行跨文化检验。     

人的所有制与人权概念

人的所有制是被用来从总体上表明一个人类共同体内部各成员之间占有关系的一种社会制度或社会关系;人的所有制是人类社会最基本的经济制度,它是区别和划分人类历史上各种不同经济形态的根本标志,是一个比生产资料所有制更为重要和更为基本的社会所有制的存在形式;人权概念是一个先后为在相关人类共同体中分别建立和维持人的公民所有制、劳动力的公民所有制、公民所有制的劳动者人身所有制、人格的公民平等、人的个人所有制、劳动力的个人所有制、个人所有制的劳动者人身所有制、婚权的个人所有制和使包括所有成年女性在内的所有社会成年成员享有人格的人类平等、劳动力的部分社会所有制等社会制度而被提出来的哲学概念、法律概念和政治概念。     

Open source software and software patents: A constitutional perspective

Imagine if each square of pavement on the sidewalk had an owner, and pedestrians required a license to step on it. Imagine the negotiations necessary to walk an entire block under this system. That is what writing a program will be like if software patents continue. The sparks of creativity and individualism that have driven the computer revolution will be snuffed out. Imagine if each square of pavement on the sidewalk had an owner, and pedestrians required a license to step on it. Imagine the negotiations necessary to walk an entire block under this system. That is what writing a program will be like if software patents continue. The sparks of creativity and individualism that have driven the computer revolution will be snuffed out.—Richard Stallman and Simson Garfinkel (1992) This article highlights the vulnerability of the open source software movement to patent infringement lawsuits. With the number of patents on software algorithms predicted to exceed 100,000 this year, it is now virtually impossible to write any computer program, however trivial, that does not violate one or more patents. This paper argues that this situation is not only ludicrous, but it is contrary to any reasonable reading of the Constitution’s intentions with respect to the protection of intellectual property. In addition, the patentability of software algorithms stems from the U.S. Supreme Court’s failure to grasp one of the most fundamental concepts of computer science. From this error stems a long, dysfunctional chain of legal reasoning and patent policies, the effect of which has been to transform the mental reasoning processes, abstract knowledge, and scientific truths of computing into patentable subject matter. The result poses a potentially catastrophic threat not only to the open source software movement and the emerging industry of electronic commerce, but more fundamentally, to the very existence of the sciences of computing, without which further U.S. technological leadership will be impossible to sustain. An anthropologist, Dr. Pfaffenberger has authored dozens of how-to and reference books on computers and the Internet. He won the Albert Payson Usher Prize from the Society for the History of Technology and the Best Book of the Year Award from the American Society for Information Science.     

Gene Patents: A Broken Incentives System

The proliferation of patents on human genes has raised important ethical questions centered on the conflict of patient rights and intellectual property rights. With the Supreme Court’s June 2013 decision that altered the patent eligibility of genetic material, it is important to reexamine the ethical implications of gene patents as a concept. Such patents suggest an ownership of genetic material that may hinder access to healthcare and inhibit medical progress. The application of the current patent system to genetic material thus violates patients’ rights without fulfilling the system’s goal of promoting innovation, suggesting a need for a revised incentives infrastructure.     

First possession: An assumption guiding inferences about who owns what

How do we determine who owns what? This article reports evidence indicating that we typically assume that the first person who possesses an object is its owner. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants read cartoons in which two children each take a turn playing with a toy. Participants selected the character who first possessed the toy when judging who owned it, but not when judging which character liked it more. In Experiment 3, participants read stories based on the Pierson v. Post (1805) property law case. In line with the appellate court’s ruling in that case, participants selected the character who first captured and possessed an animal as its owner over another character who had pursued it earlier. Together, these findings provide evidence for an assumption that specifically guides our reasoning about ownership and that may lead everyday intuitions about property to be generally consistent with property law.     

Property rights and the resolution of social conflict

It has long been argued that ownership depends upon social groups' establishing and adhering to rights such as the right to use and to exclude others from using one's own property. The authors consider the application of such rights in the interactions of young peers and siblings, and the extent to which parents support their children in establishing and maintaining the entitlement of owners. They show that children, but not their parents, give priority to ownership in settling property disputes, and argue that diverging models of children's relationships account for these differing perspectives of children and parents.     

“Signed,Sealed, Delivered ... I’m Yours”: Calibrating Body Ownership through the Consensual Mastery/slavery Dynamic

I argue that our bodies are “owned” bodies—that proprietary rights over our bodies are shared with others whose bodies are, in turn, shared by us. Drawing from literature on the self, I develop a theory of body ownership centered on the notions of multiple selves and “controlling interests.” Proprietary sentiments are evidenced in linguistic constructions, cultural artifacts, traditions, and social and sexual behaviors. Using a single case study, I explore dimensions of body ownership within a social/sexual community based on consensual Mastery and slavery in the US. The case study illustrates a variety of ownership patterns and centralizes ownership as a point of contention among inhabitants of sexual worlds.     

“它”是所有者吗？幼儿对所有权主体的理解

所有者是所有权关系的重要组成部分。社会秩序的正常运行也需要我们合理地判断所有者。本研究考查幼儿能否像成人一样,区分可能的所有者和不可能的所有者。研究采用等级评定的方式,考查了3~5岁幼儿和成人对“什么是所有者”的直觉理解。结果发现,无论是成人还是幼儿,均认为能力健全者、能力不健全者是所有者,但不认为人造物可能是所有者。3~5岁幼儿评价动植物是所有者的可能性显著高于成人,表明相对于成人,他们仍存在认为动植物是所有者的倾向。研究提示,幼儿对所有权主体的理解既与成人之间存在一致性也存在差异,成人可以基于幼儿的所有权认知引导儿童正确理解所有权概念,进而提高幼儿在该领域的社会认知。     

Giving Up the Goods: Rethinking the Human Right to Subsistence,Institutional Justice,and Imperfect Duties

Either a person's claim to subsistence goods is held against institutions equipped to distribute social benefits and burdens fairly or it is made regardless of such a social scheme. If the former, then one's claim is not best understood as based on principles setting out a subsistence goods entitlement, but rather on principles of equitable social distribution — a fair share. If, however, the claim is not against a given social scheme, no plausible principle exists defining what counts as a reasonable burden for any of the available agents to secure subsistence. No justifiable principle exists implying generalised perfect duties any agent could clearly follow or clearly breach that secure subsistence conditions for others. At best we can justify rescue duties under very specific conditions, or general but imperfect duties to improve arrangements. Neither of these obviously correlates with human rights standards. Attempts in the literature to overcome the dilemma by claiming basic rights can correlate with imperfect duties or can generate duties to work towards institutions that ‘perfect’ our imperfect duties, are faulty. I then show how the dilemma can be avoided by accounts of human rights focusing on minimum respectful treatment rather than goods or interests.     

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。     

Evidence for the Common Law as a Hypothesis‐Generating Tool for Conflict Resolution: What Is Fair?

Commentators have suggested that the conflict-resolution literature has progressed slowly. Another paradigm that may be used to generate experimentally testable hypotheses comes from the common law. Four scenario-based experiments are reported that were used to test hypotheses from a common law called adverse possession. One of three disputes involving a lost child, an automobile, and a patent were described in scenarios that subjects read and then rated using identical scales across scenarios. The scales measured the degree of ownership, neglect of the original owner, investment of the adverse possessor, and welfare of the disputed object. Whether the seizure of the disputed object was open and notorious and was continuous were statistically significant, while the results of the amount of time the possession was held by the adverse possessor was not. The common law has been shaped by judicial decisions that mirror social evolution and may reflect variables that people and nations can use to resolve conflicts.     

Ignorance,Information and Autonomy

People have a powerful interest in geneticprivacy and its associated claim to ignorance,and some equally powerful desires to beshielded from disturbing information are oftenvoiced. We argue, however, that there is nosuch thing as a right to remain in ignorance,where a right is understood as an entitlementthat trumps competing claims. This doesnot of course mean that information must alwaysbe forced upon unwilling recipients, only thatthere is no prima facie entitlement to beprotected from true or honest information aboutoneself. Any claims to be shielded frominformation about the self must compete onequal terms with claims based in the rights andinterests of others. In balancing the weightand importance of rival considerations aboutgiving or withholding information, if rightsclaims have any place, rights are more likelyto be defensible on the side of honestcommunication of information rather than indefence of ignorance. The right to free speechand the right to decline to acceptresponsibility to take decisions for othersimposed by those others seem to us moreplausible candidates for fully fledged rightsin this field than any purported right toignorance. Finally, and most importantly, ifthe right to autonomy is invoked, a properunderstanding of the distinction between claimsto liberty and claims to autonomy show that theprinciple of autonomy, as it is understood incontemporary social ethics and English law,supports the giving rather than the withholdingof information in most circumstances.     

No-Self and the Phenomenology of Ownership

The Abhidharma Buddhist revisionary metaphysics aims to provide an intellectually and morally preferred picture of the world that lacks a self. The first part of the paper claims that the Abhidharma ‘no-self’ view can be plausibly interpreted as a no-ownership view, according to which there is no locus or subject of experience and thus no owner of mental or bodily awarenesses. On this interpretation of the no-self view, the Abhidharma Buddhist metaphysicians are committed to denying the ownership of experiences, and thereby apparently obliged to explain our purported experience of ownership. My experiences seemingly come with the sense that I am the one who is undergoing this experience. But is there a really an experience of ownership—namely, an experience of being a subject that underlies our sense of ownership? I argue that there is nothing that it is like to be an owner of experiences, in the sense that there is no experiential phenomenology associated with the ownership of experience. The second part of the paper argues that, since there is no experience of ownership, there is no onus on the Abhidharma philosopher to give an explanation of the sense of ownership.     

Determining who owns what: do children infer ownership from first possession?

A basic problem of daily life is determining who owns what. One way that people may solve this problem is by relying on a ‘first possession’ heuristic, according to which the first person who possesses an object is its owner, even if others subsequently possess the object. We investigated preschoolers’ use of this heuristic in five experiments. In Experiments 1 and 2, 3- and 4-year-olds inferred that an object was owned by the character who possessed it first, even though another character subsequently possessed it. Two-year-olds also showed this bias, but only when the object was placed between the characters when children were asked about ownership. Experiment 3 ruled out the possibility that children’s bias to select the first possessor results from a tendency to select the character first associated with the object. Experiment 4 showed that 3- and 4-year-olds have difficulty disregarding the first possession heuristic, even when provided with evidence that the character who first possessed an object is not its owner. But Experiment 5 found that children can disregard the heuristic in at least some situations. These five experiments suggest that the first possession heuristic guides children’s ownership inferences. The findings provide the first evidence that preschoolers can infer who owns what, when not explicitly told, and when not reasoning about objects with which they are personally acquainted.     

The real you? The role of visual cues and comment congruence in perceptions of social attractiveness from facebook profiles

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of social cues in self-presentations and the congruence of other-generated comments with the self-presentation in people's evaluations of a profile owner. A 2 (level of social cues: high vs. low) × 2 (congruent vs. incongruent) × 2 (order) × 2 (multiple messages) mixed-subject experiment was conducted with 104 college students. The results showed that a profile owner was perceived less socially attractive when other-generated comments were incongruent with the profile owner's self-presentation. No matter how people package themselves with extravagant self-presentations, it cannot be very successful without validation from others. Interestingly, an interaction effect between congruence and the level of social cues suggested that perceived popularity was low in the incongruent condition regardless of level of social cue. Theoretical and practical implications were also discussed.     

“Leave Your Comment Below”: Can Biased Online Comments Influence Our Own Prejudicial Attitudes and Behaviors?

Increased use of online communication in everyday life presents a growing need to understand how people are influenced by others in such settings. In this study, online comments established social norms that directly influenced readers' expressions of prejudice both consciously and unconsciously. Participants read an online article and were then exposed to antiprejudiced or prejudiced comments allegedly posted by other users. Results revealed that exposure to prejudiced (relative to antiprejudiced) comments influenced respondents to post more prejudiced comments themselves. In addition, these effects generalized to participants' unconscious and conscious attitudes toward the target group once offline. These findings suggest that simple exposure to social information can impact our attitudes and behavior, suggesting potential avenues for social change in online environments.     

Pet Ownership Predicts Adherence to Cardiovascular Rehabilitation1

This experiment examined the effects of pet ownership and potential mediating (e.g., social support) and moderating variables (e.g., gender, personality, pet attachment) on completion of a 12‐week cardiac rehabilitation program. This experiment assessed pet ownership, personality, and psychosocial variables at the beginning of the program and followed participants through to completion. Results showed that pet owners (96.5%) were significantly more likely to complete cardiac rehabilitation compared with non‐owners (79.2%). Covariance analyses ruled out several alternative explanations for the results, including social support, personality variables, personal efficacy, and pet attachment. Results suggest that having a pet may facilitate rehabilitation and that further research is needed to understand how having a pet or being a pet owner improves health outcomes.     

Selective and faithful imitation at 12 and 15 months

Research on imitation in infancy has primarily focused on what and when infants imitate. More recently, however, the question why infants imitate has received renewed attention, partly motivated by the finding that infants sometimes selectively imitate the actions of others and sometimes faithfully imitate, or overimitate, the actions of others. The present study evaluates the hypothesis that this varying imitative behavior is related to infants' social traits. To do so, we assessed faithful and selective imitation longitudinally at 12 and 15 months, and extraversion at 15 months. At both ages, selective imitation was dependent on the causal structure of the act. From 12 to 15 months, selective imitation decreased while faithful imitation increased. Furthermore, infants high in extraversion were more faithful imitators than infants low in extraversion. These results demonstrate that the onset of faithful imitation is earlier than previously thought, but later than the onset of selective imitation. The observed relation between extraversion and faithful imitation supports the hypothesis that faithful imitation is driven by the social motivations of the infant. We call this relation the King Louie Effect: like the orangutan King Louie in The Jungle Book, infants imitate faithfully due to a growing interest in the interpersonal nature of interactions. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at http://youtu.be/qlnIof1k-u8 .     

When News Meets the Audience: How Audience Feedback Online Affects News Production and Consumption

Innovations in communication technology have changed the way news is produced and consumed. Various digital platforms, ranging from news websites to social media sites to personal blogs, have enabled news users to indicate how much they like the news they have read, to share it with others, and to leave comments. News users' mouse clicks are automatically recorded and aggregated by computational systems and made publicly visible (e.g., “Most Read Articles”). This essay reviews the ever‐growing research on how audience feedback online, a hybrid form of interpersonal and mass communication, alters various stages of news production and influences the way people select, process, and make sense of the news. Future research agendas are proposed.