The Role of Maternal Acceptance in the Relation Between Community Violence Exposure and Child Functioning

Children in the United States are exposed to considerable community violence that has been linked to child functioning. However, not all those exposed, experience negative outcomes. Recent research has focused on factors that “buffer” or protect children from negative consequences of violence exposure. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the potential buffering or moderating role of maternal acceptance in the relationship between community violence exposure and internalizing and externalizing problems. Subjects were 268 urban African American first graders. Community violence exposure was significantly related to symptoms of post-traumatic stress, but did not correlate with either internalizing or externalizing problems for all children, after control for demographics, maternal mental health, and general life stress. However, children's perceptions of maternal acceptance moderated the relationship between violence exposure and internalizing and externalizing problems which included being withdrawn, anxious-depressed, and demonstrating delinquent behavior. Children with the lowest levels of self-reported maternal acceptance were most impacted by community violence. In this sample of urban first graders, low levels of maternal acceptance placed children at greater risk for adverse outcomes associated with community violence exposure compared to moderate and high levels of maternal acceptance.     

The Nonworseness Claim and the Moral Permissibility of Better-Than-Permissible Acts

Grounded in what Alan Wertheimer terms the “nonworseness claim,” it is thought by some philosophers that what will be referred to herein as “better-than-permissible acts”—acts that, if undertaken, would make another or others better off than they would be were an alternative but morally permissible act to be undertaken—are necessarily morally permissible. What, other than a bout of irrationality, it may be thought, would lead one to hold that an act (such as outsourcing production to a “sweatshop” in a developing country) that produces more benefits for others than an act that is itself morally permissible (such as not doing business in the developing country at all) with respect to those same others, is not morally permissible? In this article, I argue that each of the two groups of philosophers that are most likely to accept the nonworseness claim—consequentialists and non-consequentialists—have reason to reject it, and thereby also have reason to reject the belief that better-than-permissible acts are necessarily morally permissible.