Book Reviews

Book reviewed in this article: Justice in an Unjust World: Foundations for a Christian Approach to Justice, by Karen Lebacqz. Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelfth Century, eds Bernard McGinn, John Meyendorff and Jean Leclercq. Common Ground: Christianity, African Religions and Philosophy (American University Studies Series VII Theology and Religion, Vol. 25), by Emmanuel K. Twesigye. Quest for Belonging: Introduction to a Study of African Independent Churches, by Inus Daneel. African Church Historiography: an Ecumenical Perspective, edited by Ogbu U. Kalu. Die Rückkehr zur Weisheit. Philosophie angesichts des Abgrunds, by Milan Machovec.     

Dialogue in Dialog: “Stem Cells?”

Ted Peters, The Stem Cell Controversy , p.290
Roger Willer, Moral Failure in the Stem Cell Controversy , p.294
Larry Rasmussen, Where the Moral Hazards Are in the Stem Cell Debate , p.296
Laurie Zoloth, The Duty to Heal an Unfinished World: Jewish Tradition and Genetic Research , p.299
Philip Hefner, There's an Elephant in the Living Room , p.300     

Response to Karen Lebacqz and Stephen Palmquist

I respond here to the essays by Karen Lebacqz and Stephen Palmquist, beginning with my debt of gratitude to Lebacqz for her understanding of the methodological depth I try to bring to the analysis of bioethical issues. I further illustrate that observation here by reviewing the logic of my approach to the issue of wrongful life. At the same time, in connection with human genetic enhancement, I acknowledge that I may have not properly appreciated the seriousness of the problem of sin. To Palmquist's assertion that my criticisms of Kant's treatments of grace miss the way Kant has confined himself to being a philosophical (as opposed to biblical) theologian, I argue that Kant's problem lies instead in his poor application of his own compelling insights about the depths of human sinning. I close with an appreciation of Palmquist's observation of some important points of contact between Kant's understanding of sin and that of Kierkegaard.     

公正敏感性的研究现状与展望

公正敏感性是一种独立的、稳定的人格特质, 体现为个体知觉不公正的难易程度以及对知觉到的不公正所作出的反应的强烈程度。它包含受害者敏感性、观察者敏感性、得益者敏感性、犯过者敏感性四个成分, 主要使用量表法进行测量。公正敏感性是公正问题中的一个重要视角, 与亲社会行为、反社会行为密切相关, 对认知过程也有一定影响。目前的研究主要集中于公正敏感性对结果变量的影响, 今后的研究应该进一步探讨公正敏感性的影响因素。     

Response to Richard B. Miller's "Children, Ethics, and Modern Medicine"

In this essay, Paul Lauritzen examines Richard B. Miller's liberal account of pediatric ethics by asking if the duty to promote a child's basic interests is substantial enough to secure the well‐being of children. This question is raised in light of two case studies: daytime TV talk shows that broadcast interviews with sexually active children, and a medical study conducted to test the effect of growth hormone treatment on adult height in peripubertal children. In both cases, Lauritzen argues, children are subjected to potential harms that are not easily explained, and therefore not easily prevented, by appeals to basic interests.     

Bioethics and Pastoral Concern: Some Possible New Directions in Pastoral Theology

This special issue of the journal is comprised of papers given at a conference in May 2011 at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston on the theme of “Social Justice and the Health Professions.” This article offers the following rationale for this special issue in particular and for pastoral theologians to contribute to bioethics in general: (1) two contemporary theological thinkers in bioethics, Karen Lebacqz and Lisa Cahill, argue that theological discussions of justice broaden and deepen discussions of justice in mainstream bioethics—thus the focus on social justice provides an area for interdisciplinary and intersectional work; (2) pastoral theologians have not, to a great extent, contributed to discussions of religion and bioethics—this has been the territory of theological ethicists, especially during the 1970s; (3) one influential pastoral theologian, Bonnie Miller-McLemore, has called for (a) a broader concern for health in pastoral theology beyond psychological health and (b) more disciplinary approaches within pastoral theology beyond psychology so as to attend to “the living human web”; and (4) one way to advance the theological contributions in bioethics is by inviting pastoral theologians to focus on matters of social justice (an established area of intersection) as identified by health professionals, thus providing (a) new areas for inquiry and (b) new theological perspectives in bioethics. This article also suggests that pastoral theologians can contribute to bioethics by focusing on both “macro” issues (issues relating to structures and groups) and “micro” issues (issues relating to persons and experiences) as a way of pursuing the topic of justice in bioethics. The bulk of this article focuses on “macro” issues, but, in closing, the author articulates how he has been addressing “micro” issues in his own work. The author argues that both of these approaches—“macro” and “micro”—are legitimate ways for pastoral theologians to express pastoral concerns in bioethics.     

人类干细胞研究的伦理学争论

关于干细胞研究的伦理学争论越来越成为热门话题。2000年8月23日,美国卫生研究所颁布了涉及人类多能胚胎干细胞研究的指南。指南允许联邦政府资助的研究者进行干细胞研究,但是按照布什总统2001年8月9日的决定,政府只资助有限制的干细胞研究。而在英国、法国、日本、澳洲、以及其他国家,干细胞研究不仅在私人的实验室里而且也在政府的实验室里进行着。无论如何,人类干细胞研究应该按照一定规范谨慎进行。     

The moral justification scale: reliability and validity of a new measure of care and justice orientations

Research increasingly suggests that there are limitations to Kohlberg's theory of moral development. Gilligan in particular has observed that Kohlberg's theory considers abstract principled reasoning as the highest level of moral judgment, and penalizes those who focus on the interpersonal ramifications of a moral decision. Gilligan calls these justice and care orientations. The present paper describes the development of the Moral Justification Scale, an objective measure of the two orientations. The scale consists of six vignettes, of which two are justice oriented, two are care oriented, and two are mixed, incorporating both orientations. Construct validity was evaluated by expert judges and, overall, was high. Cronbach's alpha was .75 for the Care subscale and .64 for the Justice subscale, indicating adequate internal consistency. Split-half reliabilities were as follows: Care, r = .72, p < .01, and Justice, r = .60, p < .05. Regarding test-retest reliability (approximately two weeks), r = .61, p < .05, for Care; r = .69, p < .05, for Justice. Neither subscale correlated significantly with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Thus, the Moral Justification Scale shows promise as an easily administered, objectively scored measure of Gilligan's constructs of care and justice.     

Bioethics—Eleven Approaches

Abstract:  Using a case study, the author reviews 11 different approaches to bioethics, examining both their implications in clinical practice and their importance for clergy. In addition to the popular stress on patients' rights and principles in bioethics, the approaches include perspectives drawn from feminist ethics, phenomenology, ethnography, covenant views, virtue ethics, postmodernism, and casuistry. Lebacqz shows that each perspective may be important for stressing something different in the clinical setting, and suggests that clergy should be prepared to extend the range of views that may be operating in a given case.     

Luck and Equality: A Reply to Hurley1

In Chapter 6 (“Why the Aim to Neutralize Luck Cannot Provide a Basis for Egalitarianism”) of her Justice, Luck, and Knowledge, Susan Hurley defends two claims: that “the aim to neutralize luck [does not] contribute to identifying and specifying what egalitarianism is”, and that it also provides no “independent non‐question‐begging reason or justification for egalitarianism” (p. 147). In the present response, I reject the first of Hurley's claims, and I show that the second, while true, lacks polemical force. I said, in “On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice” (Ethics, 1989), that     

An appreciative response to Niels Henrik Gregersen's JKR research conference lecture

Abstract

Using human embryos in research remains a controversial issue, especially in Christian bioethics. Although the official Catholic stance rejects human embryonic stem cell research, Christian thinkers T. Peters, K. Lebacqz and G. Bennett support it. They endorse the 14-day Rule and argue that ex vivo embryos lack moral worth. I examine and challenge the 14-day Rule and location argument (in vivo/ex vivo). I develop a theory of holistic anthropology and intrinsic moral value for human embryos. I conclude that intrinsic moral value is not equal to full moral value, and therefore use of embryos in biomedical research is morally permissible.     

American Church/State Jurisprudence from the Warren Court to the Rehnquist Court

The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren did much to expand the free exercise of religion and diminish government endorsement of it. The pace at which this occurred slowed under Chief Justice Burger and is directly challenged by the Court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist. This change is documented, followed by an analysis of what seems to animate Rehnquist.     

Polarization of perceived Procedural Justice

This study examined polarization of perceptions of Procedural Justice. Two polarization mechanisms are examined, Persuasive Arguments and Social Comparisons. Participants were students enrolled in a first-year introductory business class. There were 216 participants in the Persuasive Arguments study, 429 in the Social Comparisons study. The average age of all participants was 22.3 yr. (SD = 2.1); 56% were women. Fields of study represented were business, engineering, information technology, and sports. Analysis showed under conditions of low Procedural Justice, polarization effects were only found with the Persuasive Arguments mechanism. Under conditions of high Procedural Justice, polarization effects were only found with Social Comparisons. Implications for group polarization and Procedural Justice theories are considered.     

国民公正观的结构

对429名被调查者的研究发现,最为公众赞同的公正观依次为:(1)公正体现在法律面前人人平等;(2)公正体现为人们在求学、就业、投资、参政等方面的机会平等;(3)公正体现在程序公平合理。因素分析表明,国民的公正观是多元的,可分为6个维度,分别为权利、衡平、救济、报应、平等、平均。聚类分析的结果表明,公正内隐观的6个维度最终可聚为"均等"和"对等"2类。     

REVIEWS

Book reviewed in this article:
Jack Pustilnick and Dale Riepe, The Structure of Philosophy
Herbert Fingarette, Confucius: The Secular as Sacred
Brian Barry, The Liberal Theory of Justice; A Critical Examination of the Principal Doctrines of a Theory of Justice by John Rawls     

A Common Humanity: Thinking about Love and Truth and Justice

Book Information A Common Humanity: Thinking about Love and Truth and Justice. A Common Humanity: Thinking about Love and Truth and Justice Raimond Gaita London Routledge 2000 xxxi, 293 Hardback £17.99 By Raimond Gaita. Routledge. London. Pp. xxxi, 293. Hardback:£17.99,     

Beliefs in the end of the world,justice, religiosity and system preservation: a psychological study of how the ‘end of the world’ could match common belief systems

While historical research has shown that Beliefs in the End of the World (BEW) are present in human culture, no psychological study has yet explored why people endorse one BEW rather than another. The aim of this study is to understand how the BEWs are linked to other beliefs. Three BEWs were studied: Human Deserved End of the World (HDEW) (ecological view of the end of the world); AOW (an external and total end of the world); and Religious End of the World (RSEW) (end of the world caused by a God). Several common beliefs were hypothetically linked to them: Immanent and Ultimate Justice (two dimensions of the Belief in a Just World [BJW]); System Justification (SJ); and Religiosity. Eight hundred and eighty-one participants answered our questionnaires on general Internet forums. Results showed that: (1) HDEW is explained positively by Immanent Justice and negatively by SJs; (2) Annihilation of the World (AOW) is explained negatively by Ultimate Justice and Religiosity, and positively by SJ; and (3) RSEW is explained positively by Religiosity and Ultimate Justice. Justice, Religiosity and preservation of one’s way of life (SJ) seem to be ways to cope with the symbolic threat that is represented by the End of the World. Some perspectives for a psychological study of BEWs are presented.     

Humanity or justice?

This paper reflects on a critique of cosmopolitanism mounted by Tom Campbell, who argues that cosmopolitans place undue stress on the issue of global justice. Campbell argues that aid for the impoverished needy in the third world, for example, should be given on the Principle of Humanity rather than on the Principle of Justice. This line of thought is also pursued by ‘Liberal Nationalists’ like Yael Tamir and David Miller. Thomas Nagel makes a similar distinction and questions whether the ideal of justice can even be meaningfully applied on a global scale. The paper explores whether the distinction between the Principle of Humanity and the Principle of Justice might be a false dichotomy in that both principles could be involved in humanitarian assistance. It will suggest that both principles might be grounded in an ethics of caring and that the ethics of caring cannot be so sharply distinguished from the discourse of justice and of rights. As a result, the Principle of Humanity and the Principle of Justice cannot be so sharply distinguished either. It is because we care about others as human beings (Principle of Humanity) that we pursue justice for them (Principle of Justice) and the alleviation of their avoidable suffering.     

Hostage Negotiation as a Team Enterprise

Hostage negotiation, although appearing to be a one-to-one encounter is actually a team effort that demands a very high level of coordination and common understandings and purpose. The processes required to produce this team effort are described, as are the various roles played by members of the team. Examples are given of specific incidents in which the ancillary roles were highly significant in producing a positive outcome. The apparent centrality of the solitary negotiator, then, masks the concentrated efforts of other specialists whose efforts and interactions with the incident commander and the negotiator contribute to team effectiveness. Professor Emeritus of Forensic Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice (C.U.N.Y.), has trained hostage negotiators for police and other agencies both in the United States and in EuropeDirector of the Criminal Justice Center at John Jay College of Criminal Justice was for six years Team Commander and Chief Negotiator of The Hostage Negotiation Unit of the New York City Police Department     

孟子王道理想的心性向度

王道理想是孟子政治哲学的核心,作为一套超乎现实却又对现实具有普遍导向意义的治国理念,其践行的基石被孟子归结在人的心性之上。立足于“心”孟子提出王道缘起于“仁”,基于“性”孟子断言王道的落实在于“义”;由“心”“性”的统一确立了仁义一体的构想,据此认为,“居仁由义”是王道理想得以向现实转化的基本思路。