法律正义与道德正义

进入文明时代以来,社会正义一直是人们追求的基本价值目标.社会正义实质上是对人类社会关系(包括个人之间、群体及组织之间、个人与群体及组织之间的相互关系)的公平性、正当性的确认和捍卫,社会正义通常采取法律形式和道德形式来表达.法律正义是以国家意志的形式来表达的社会关系的规定性,它通过制度规范方式来确认和捍卫公民的合法权益和守法义务.道德正义是以德性和良心的形式来表现的社会关系的规定性,它通过伦理规范的方式来确认和维护公民的伦理权利和道德义务.法律正义是道德正义的基础和保障,因而也是社会正义的底线和起点;道德正义是法律正义的前提和灵魂,因而也是社会正义的理想和目标.构建法律正义与道德正义的良性互动关系.是实现社会正义的有效保证.     

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。     

全球正义:意义与限度

正义作为一种广义的理想,无疑古已有之,对正义的探讨,也已经历了一个漫长的过程:从柏拉图到罗尔斯,正义一度成为关注的主题.随着经济全球化的多方面展开,正义问题开始逐渐超越了地域的界限而成为全球性的问题;冷战结束后政治、军事、经济等各种形式的冲突,进一步将如何在国际范围内建立一种公正的政治、经济秩序等等问题,提到了突出的地位.在这一背景下,讨论全球正义的问题无疑既具有理论的意义,也具有不可忽视的实践意义.     

全球正义——日益扩展的行动范围

各种正义概念 在《理想国》的十卷著作中,苏格拉底的问题"什么是正义?"导致了人们分别在个体和社会那里对正义的本性进行研究.     

Cosmopolitanism and Global Justice

Philosophical attention to problems about global justice is flourishing in a way it has not in any time in memory. This paper considers some reasons for the rise of interest in the subject and reflects on some dilemmas about the meaning of the idea of the cosmopolitan in reasoning about social institutions, concentrating on the two principal dimensions of global justice, the economic and the political.Opening address of the Mini-Conference on Global Justice, American Philosophical Association Pacific Division, 2004 Annual Meeting, Pasadena, California, March 27, 2004. I am grateful for comments to Darrel Moellendorf and to my copanelists Michael Blake, Kristen Hessler, Jon Mandle, Mathias Risse and Leif Wenar.     

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.     

Contractualism and Global Economic Justice

This article examines Rawls's and Scanlon's surprisingly undemanding contractualist accounts of global moral principles. Scanlon's Principle of Rescue requires too little of the world's rich unless the causal links between them and the poor are unreliable. Rawls's principle of legitimacy leads him to theorize in terms of a law of peoples instead of persons, and his conception of a people leads him to spurn global distributive equality. Rawls's approach has advantages over the cosmopolitan egalitarianism of Beitz and Pogge. But it cannot generate principles to regulate the entire global economic order. The article proposes a new cosmopolitan economic original position argument to make up for this lack in Rawls's Law of Peoples.     

Priorities of Global Justice

One-third of all human deaths are due to poverty-related causes, to malnutrition and to diseases that can be prevented or cured cheaply. Yet our politicians, academics, and mass media show little concern for how such poverty might be reduced. They are more interested in possible military interventions to stop human rights violations in developing countries, even though such interventions – at best – produce smaller benefits at greater cost. This Western priority may be rooted in self-interest. But it engenders, and is sustained by, a deeply flawed moral presentation of global economic cooperation. The new global economic order we impose aggravates global inequality and reproduces severe poverty on a massive scale. On any plausible understanding of our moral values, the prevention of such poverty is our foremost responsibility.     

Newsworthy Moral Dilemmas: Justice,Caring, and Gender

Gilligan (1982) put forth a care moralorientation based on women's responses to moraldilemmas. We tested in 2 studies Gilligan's predictedgender differences and the effect of dilemma content onmoral orientation. We used real-life dilemmasconsisting of the Baby M surrogate motherhood case andthe Kimberly Mays case where babies were switched atbirth;these dilemmas had the advantage of beingstandardized across all participants, and of being moreinvolving than hypothetical dilemmas. The Baby M dilemmaelicited primarily justice responses while the KimberlyMays case elicited care responses; yet in both these dilemmas, when compared to men, womenscored higher on care, and lower on justice.Additionally, moral orientation was related to specificresolutions ofthe dilemmas.Thus both genders wereflexible in their use of justice and care orientationsdepending on the dilemma, with gender differences stillapparent within dilemmas.     

Global Economy,Justice and Sustainability

Although this paper attends to some extent to the question whether the global economy promotes or impedes either justice or sustainability, its main focus is on the relationship between justice and sustainability. Whilst sustainability itself as a normative goal is about sustaining inter alia justice, justice itself requires intergenerationally the sustaining of the conditions of a good life for all. At the heart of this is a conception of justice as realising the basic rights of all–in contrast to a more demanding distributive principle or a less demanding principle of not violating the liberty rights or other basic rights of others. Although Pogge’s analysis that the global economy causes harm by failing to realise basic rights is seen as a useful challenge to common libertarian assumptions, the acceptance of other positive correlative duties, following Shue, is advocated. Insofar as the global economy fails to realise basic justice, the question is ‘how far can it realistically be changed?’ and this is a function partly of the moral attitudes of individuals at large.     

Care and Justice in Real-Life Moral Reasoning

Moral reasoning of 57 (Time 1) and 59 (Time 2) nursing, social-work and law-enforcement students was investigated in terms of care and justice reasoning about hypothetical and real-life dilemmas. The analysis methods were the Ethic of Care Interview, the Moral Judgment Interview, Lyons' Moral Orientation Scheme and Wark and Krebs' classification of real-life dilemmas. The type of dilemma predicted moral orientation usage. Prosocial dilemmas pulled for care and antisocial dilemmas for justice orientation. Level of justice reasoning varied according to the type of dilemma. Real-life care reasoning was consistent with participants' competence, with the exception of transgression-type dilemmas at Time 2. Levels of care and justice reasoning were highly correlated with each other. These results underscore the importance of the dilemma type and suggest that care reasoning is a significant part of real life morality. The study recommends the ECI as a new model to account for real-life care reasoning.     

The Rationality of Ultimate Concern: Moral Exemplars,Theological Ethics,and the Science of Moral Cognition

This paper argues that consideration of moral exemplars may provide a means for integrating insights across philosophical ethics, theological ethics, and the scientific study of moral cognition. Key to this endeavor is an understanding of the relation of cognition and emotion in ethical decision-making, a relation that is usually understood to be oppositional but which in proper circumstances may be understood to be quite the opposite. Indeed, a distinctive feature of moral exemplarity may consist in the ability to properly integrate the emotions into the moral life, and reference to and imitation of exemplars may involve a referencing and imitating of the emotions of the exemplar.