正义的可能及其陷阱——一种对罗尔斯正义观的审视

罗尔斯认为正义可以通过两个层面的努力得以实现:一是从宏观上建构正义社会,二是从微观上促使个体获得充分的正义感。对于前者,罗尔斯认为可通过正义原则运用的四个阶段(探求正义原则、立宪、立法和行政司法)来实现。对于后者,他认为可以通过善的内在化或交叠共识方式来完成。可惜的是,由于罗尔斯的正义观本质上是相互性正义观,它以互助互利、相互期待、对等对待作为基础,这使得正义无法脱离铢锱必较的个体利己主义倾向,在正义严重缺乏的社会无法获得实现。     

Justice in the Family: A Defence of Feminist Contractarianism

ABSTRACT Jean Hampton argues that we can detect exploitation in personal relationships by thinking about what we would agree to were we to set aside the emotional benefits we receive from those relationships. Hampton calls her account “feminist contractarianism,” but it has recently been critiqued as decidedly un‐feminist, on the grounds that it is hostile to women's interests and women's values. Furthermore, Hampton's requirement that we imaginatively distance ourselves from our emotional connections to our loved ones — the key element in her contractarian test — is simply ad hoc. In this essay, I will evaluate these objections and offer a new justification for Hampton's test. I conclude that feminist contractarianism is not only a useful tool for detecting exploitation in the family, it is also deserving of its feminist label.     

The Social Constitution of Perceiver-Environment Reciprocity

Although animal—environment reciprocity is central to ecological psychology, one facet of this viewpoint remains underappreciated: organisms alter environments so as to better function in them. In many species this activity of “niche construction” includes coordinated actions by individuals jointly working toward common ends. Mounting paleontological and archeological evidence indicates that human evolution should be viewed in the light of such social considerations. The environment of our immediate human ancestors was marked by, among other things, group settlements, manufactured stone tools, and extensive migration. An emerging species such as ours, whose distinctive psychological qualities offered a selective advantage relative to these conditions, would flourish particularly if it could preserve the gains of prior generations even as its members continued to transform econiche features in functionally significant ways. This evolutionary perspective, with its due recognition of sociocultural processes, highlights 3 factors of importance for ecological psychology: (1) the history of person-environment reciprocity results in human environments whose natural and sociocultural factors are inextricably intertwined. (2) developing individuals enter human environments not as solitary explorers but through the guidance of more experienced persons with the result that much development takes shape through social mediation; and (3) a distinguishing and ubiquitous feature of human environments that is a product of collective human actions is places. Nearly all human activity, including most psychological research, occurs in places, and owing to their psychological significance, it would seem impossible to disentangle psychological and social processes. These 3 factors illuminate that a fully-realized ecological psychology will be one that includes recognition of the constitutive role played by social processes.     

Grounding Rights in Social Practices: A Defence

This paper defends a social practiceconception of moral rights possession againstwhat many of its critics take to be a decisiveobjection, namely that such a conceptionprevents us from using moral rights forcritical purposes.     

The Self as Social Construction

The paper begins with the articulation of key assumptions central to contemporary constructionist scholarship. This is followed by an analysis of the issues in the social construction of the self. To this end several major lines of inquiry along with their socio-political implications are brought into focus. Finally, an alternative to traditional conceptions of self, one that emerges distinctly from social constructionist theory is presented.     

The University and Social Justice

Considerations of social justice pertain to universities with respect to reserved spaces for applicants from disadvantaged groups, targeted hiring, differential student fees or faculty workloads and salaries, and similarly contested matters. This paper displaces debates over what constitutes just allocation of university resources from those over theories of justice in general to those about alternative visions of the proper goal of universities. To this end, educational and democratic theories of John Dewey are drawn on as an alternative to elitist conceptions and the implications of these competing viewpoints for specific justice-related issues are explicated.     

Deviant Heroes: Nonconformists as Agents of Justice and Social Change

Sociologists usually define deviance as a fluid construct, relative to given social circumstances, and something that is neither negative nor positive in and of itself. Despite the rejection of absolutist approaches, the vast majority of texts and studies concerning deviant behavior implicitly or explicitly present deviance as either a morally bad or morally neutral behavior. Such literatures wrongly conflate deviant behavior with villainous actions. We argue that some of the most important deviants have been at the leading forefront of positive social change and the creation of a more just, fair, and humane society. Deviant heroes are those individuals who violate unjust norms and laws, facing the repercussions of social control, while simultaneously effecting positive social change. This article considers the theoretical role of the deviant hero within classical and contemporary sociological traditions and identifies new directions for social research.     

Framing,Reciprocity and the Grounds of Egalitarian Justice

John Rawls famously claims that ‘justice is the first virtue of social institutions’. On one of its readings, this remark seems to suggest that social institutions are essential for obligations of justice to arise. The spirit of this interpretation has recently sparked a new debate about the grounds of justice. What are the conditions that generate principles of distributive justice? I am interested in a specific version of this question. What conditions generate egalitarian principles of distributive justice and give rise to equality as a demand of justice? My paper focuses on relationalist answers to this question. Advocates of relationalism assume that ‘principles of distributive justice have a relational basis’, in the sense that ‘practice mediated relations in which individuals stand condition the content, scope and justification of those principles’. To say that principles of justice are ‘based’ on and ‘conditioned’ by practice mediated relations is ambiguous. I will here be concerned with advocates of what I call the relationalist requirement, viz. positions which assume that ‘practice mediated relations’ constitute a necessary existence condition for principles of egalitarian distributive justice. Relationalists who endorse this view come in different varieties. My focus is on relationalists that view social and political institutions as the relevant ‘practice mediated relation’. The question at stake, then, is this: Are institutionally mediated relations a necessary condition for equality to arise as a demand of justice? Strong relationalists of the institutionalist cast, call them advocates of the institutionalist requirement, differ in important respects. They argue about what set of institutions is foundationally significant, and they disagree on why only that institutional relation gives rise to egalitarian obligations of justice. My paper engages two ways of arguing for the institutionalist requirement: Julius’s framing argument and Andrea Sangiovanni’s reciprocity argument. The issue at stake are the grounds of egalitarian justice and I will argue that the institutionalist requirement is mistaken. It is not the case that egalitarian obligations of distributive justice arise only between and solely in virtue of individuals sharing a common institution.     

The Soul of Reciprocity Part One: Reciprocity Refused

In this first of a two-part essay, Milbank contends that "Intersubjectivity poses itself both as a problem and as a solution only within the regime of representation that has prevailed since Descartes – although it was foreshadowed by post-Scottish scholasticism." The first part, then, is given over to a deconstruction of modern notions of the self in anticipation of the second part, which is a constructive proposal for a recovery of the soul. In the present essay, then, Milbank's intention is to show that "we should abandon the attempt to modify the regime of subjectivity with postmodern trans-humanism or else phenomenological intersubjectivity, or else again the neo-Kantian ethics of finitude, and instead attempt to recover the regime of the soul."     

社会公平:构建社会主义和谐社会的伦理基础

社会公平是社会主义最核心的价值追求,是构建社会主义和谐社会的伦理基础。社会公平是当代社会经济发展的基本理念,也是一个由机会平等、按贡献分配以及社会调节等原则组成的基本规则体系,具体表现为权利公平、机会公平、规则公平和分配结果的相对公平。在社会转型时期,必须坚持社会公平原则,对社会的有限资源和权利义务进行有效而合理的配置和安排,才能建立公正合理的社会经济生活秩序,建设一个经济繁荣、政治文明、社会秩序稳定、人民安居乐业的和谐社会。     

The Soul of Reciprocity Part Two: Reciprocity Granted

In "The Soul of Reciprocity Part One: Reciprocity Refused", the case for reciprocity was established in a negative manner. It was shown that its refusal is a crucial aspect of modernity: the result of the interacting influences of modern capitalist economics and an ontotheological outlook that is explicitly modern, not ancient. A disdain for reciprocity thus lies at modernity's very heart. The soul, which, I argued, it allied to reciprocity, was rejected in modernity and the subject was rhetorically advocated in its place. This is true for three crucial instances: Deleuzian transhumanism, Levinasian intersubjectivity and neo-Kantian neo-humanism. All three only re-work the Cartesian and Kantian turn to the subject, which was also a turn away from the soul. "The Soul of Reciprocity Part Two: Reciprocity Restored", establishes a positive case for a postmodern retrieval of the premodern soul of reciprocity.     

正义:社会正义和全球正义

<正>义是理念,理念在历史中显示。非正义是与正义相关而不是相反的概念,它指的是各种事态。鉴于非正义所指事态的多样性,正义理念可被赋予以下内容:个体的基本权利必须被保护和行使;在某时期的实际条件下,这些权利的诸意蕴必须在国家和全球的层面上被诉求和实行。正义由此显示为一个元-原则,并在社会正义和全球正义中得到充实。当前,自由市场和人权的结合加剧了社会和全球非正义,加剧了国家之间和内部业已存在的经济不平等。保护作为清晰思考和界定的基本人权是走出当前困境的出路。     

从社会正义迈向生态正义:社会工作的理论拓展与范式转移

传统社会工作"人在环境中"的"环境"概念常常指服务对象所处的社会环境,很大程度上忽略了对人与自然环境关系的重视。本文认为,在恶化的自然环境不断给人类社会带来一系列灾难性后果的时代背景下,社会工作专业应体现出与时俱进的学科品质,将"生态环境"之维带回社会工作,重新解读和修正主流社会工作关于"人在环境中"这一核心理论与实践议题的认知及其实践范式。进而,本文结合当前的生态发展议题,尝试从理论的生态转向、教育体系的重构、参与生态环境治理的实践能力提升,以及社会工作社会属性的专业本质重塑等方面提出社会工作积极回应生态文明建设的可能路径,这在一定程度上是对绿色社会工作理论范式的初步探索。     

Religious Congregations as Mediating Structures for Social Justice: a Multilevel Examination

Scholars in the field of community psychology have called for a closer examination of the mediating role that religious congregations serve in society, especially in relation to the promotion of social justice. The current study provides such an examination, offering a multilevel examination of religious individuals (n = 5,123) nested within religious congregations (n = 62) with a particular focus on how individual and congregational level variables (i.e. theological orientation, frequency of religious attendance, bonding and bridging social capital) predict individual prioritization of and participation in congregational social justice activities. Findings indicated that individual level theological orientation was associated with prioritization, and demographics and social capital bonding were associated with prioritization and participation. Furthermore, congregational bridging social capital was associated with the prioritization of justice, whereas congregational theological orientation moderated the associations between frequency of religious participation for both prioritization of and participation in congregational justice activities. These findings show that specific aspects of the congregational setting (i.e., congregational theological orientation) are important to the individual prioritization of and participation in social justice activities. These findings provide support for the role of religious congregations as mediating structures for social justice. Implications for future research are also discussed.     

Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure

A review of recent research demonstrates that people are more willing to accept decisions when they feel that those decisions are made through decision‐making procedures they view as fair. Studies of procedural justice judgements further suggest that people evaluate fairness primarily through criteria that can be provided to all the parties to a conflict: whether there are opportunities to participate; whether the authorities are neutral; the degree to which people trust the motives of the authorities; and whether people are treated with dignity and respect during the process. These findings are optimistic and suggest that authorities have considerable ability to bridge differences and interests and values through the use of fair decision‐making procedures. The limits to the effectiveness of such procedural approaches are also outlined.