On Living in an Unjust Society

ABSTRACT Can it be wrong to simply live in an unjust society? Four moral principles: group responsibility, unjust enrichment, a general duty to prevent injustice and the need to preserve one's moral integrity indicate that it might be. I explore the implications of each of these principles and conclude that while the possibility of doing good might counterbalance the threat to moral integrity, a person who continues to live in an unjust society should repudiate the injustice to avoid being held responsible for it and has a duty to compensate those deprived if he is unjustly enriched. Moreover, the general duty to prevent injustice bears more heavily on those who are closest to it.     

IN DEFENCE OF NATURAL DAYLIGHT

Objects appear different as the illumination under which they are perceived varies. This fact is sometimes thought to pose a problem for the view that colours are mind‐independent properties: if a coloured object appears different under different illuminations, then under which illumination does the object appear the colour it really is? I argue that given the nature of natural daylight, and certain plausible assumptions about the nature of the colours it illuminates, there is a non‐arbitrary reason to suppose that it is under natural daylight that we are able to perceive the real colours of objects.     

THE DIVERSITY–VALIDITY DILEMMA: OVERVIEW AND LEGAL CONTEXT

Due to racioethnic and sex subgroup differences on predictor scores in many selection procedures, it is difficult for organizations to simultaneously maximize the validity of their selection procedures and hire a diverse workforce. One response to this diversity–validity dilemma is to revise the selection procedures, an approach developed by Ployhart and Holtz (this issue, 2008) . A second possible response is to use affirmative action to increase workforce diversity, an approach developed by Kravitz (this issue, 2008) . This paper briefly presents the legal context that motivates and constrains these approaches. We begin by defining key terms, describing adverse impact, and outlining the burden of proof in adverse impact cases. We then turn to the use of racioethnic minority and female preferences, summarizing some key court decisions and the conditions under which private and public employers may use preferences.     

Race,social relationships,and mental health

Researchers often assume that the extent, quality, and effectiveness of personal relationships explain why African Americans have relatively good mental health despite experiencing high levels of stress. This study tests this assumption using data from the 1990–1992 National Comorbidity Survey. Few racial differences emerge in patterns of social relationships, and the nature and quality of social relationships do not explain African Americans’ resiliency on mental health. Several aspects of social relationships benefit African Americans’ mental health more than Whites’, but these moderating effects are insubstantial. Hence, the data do not support the assumption. If social relationships help explain the lack of racial differences in mental health, their nature and effects must be more adequately conceptualized.