Aristotle on Corrective Justice

This paper argues against the view favored by many contemporary scholars that corrective justice in the Nicomachean Ethics is essentially compensatory and in favor of a bifunctional account according to which corrective justice aims at equalizing inequalities of both goods and evils resulting from various interactions between persons. Not only does the account defended in this paper better explain the broad array of examples Aristotle provides than does the standard interpretation, it also better fits Aristotle’s general definition of what is just. In the last section, the paper argues, again against the standard interpretation, that proportional reciprocity, the kind of justice discussed in Nicomachean Ethics V.5, has two forms and is closely linked to corrective justice. Although corrective justice and proportional reciprocity are conceptually distinct and do different work in Aristotle’s political philosophy, instances of proportional reciprocity are instantiated by instances of corrective justice. This linkage, the paper concludes, helps to explain why Aristotle would assign corrective justice such a prominent place in his theory of justice.     

On Being Wholeheartedly Ambivalent: Indecisive Will,Unity of the Self,and Integration by Narration

In this paper, I want to discuss the relation between ambivalence and the unity of the self. I will raise the question whether a person can be both ambivalent about his own will and nevertheless be wholehearted. Since Harry Frankfurt’s theory is my main point of reference, I briefly introduce his account of the will and the reasons for his opposition towards ambivalence in the first section. In the second section, I analyse different interpretations of ambivalence. In the third section, I provide a narrative account of a diachronic integration of the self that allows for the integration of volitional ambivalence. Finally, I scrutinise different meanings of the unity of the self, since disintegration, not ambivalence, seems to be bad for us. I conclude that persons can indeed be wholeheartedly ambivalent.     

Collective Action on Behalf of Women: Testing the Conceptual Distinction Between Traditional Collective Action and Small Acts in College Women

Sex Roles - The current study examines the nature of actions that U.S. college women (N?=?267) engage in to promote, protect, or enhance the welfare of other women. The study had two...     

Jandu Yani U (for all families): Tailored Triple P Training and Support Promote Empowerment in Remote Aboriginal Communities

Journal of Child and Family Studies - To enhance the accessibility and acceptability of evidence-based parenting programs in Indigenous communities, there is a need to build a confident and skilled...     

The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire (SCSORF): A Validation Study on Iranian Muslim Patients Undergoing Dialysis

The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire (SCSORF) is an often used and validated scale that is uncommonly utilized in culturally diverse populations. The purpose of this research investigation was to adapt the SCSORF for use among Iranian Muslim patients undergoing dialysis and to examine the reliability and validity of the scale among this population. A total of 428 patients (228 females, 200 males, M age = 52.2 years, SD = 10) were selected from five dialysis center in Tehran and Qazvin, Iran. A comprehensive forward–backward translation system was used for cross-cultural translation. Patients completed a baseline questionnaire obtaining demographic and clinical information as well as the SCSORF, the Age Universal Religious Orientation Scale (AUROS), the religious life inventory (RLI), and the Duke University religion index (DUREL). 2 weeks later, patients were asked to complete the SCSORF once again. Reliability of the SCSORF was examined using internal consistency and test-rest reliability. Convergent validity and factor structure using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were also examined. Cronbach’s α for the single construct of the SCSORF was 0.89 with adequate test–retest reliability measured over a 2 week period. SCSORF scores were significantly correlated with AUROS, RLI and the DUREL. The EFA generated a single factor solution for the SCSORF while these results were confirmed by the CFA in an independent sample. Findings demonstrated that the SCSORF has favorable reliability, convergent validity, and divergent validity among Iranian Muslim patients undergoing dialysis and is recommended for use by clinicians (e.g., nephrologists) to measure strength of religious faith among patients.     

Like Mike: Ability contagion through touched objects increases confidence and improves performance

Magical thinking refers to irrational peculiar beliefs, including those that conform to the laws of contagion. We propose that touching an object that was previously touched by a high performer increases confidence via magical thinking (ability contagion) and improves actual performance among individuals high in experiential processing. A series of studies provides support for this main proposition. Our results cast doubt on an alternative explanation based on priming, and are obtained controlling for participants’ level of rational processing, motivation, and affect.     

Mechanisms of motivation–cognition interaction: challenges and opportunities

Recent years have seen a rejuvenation of interest in studies of motivation–cognition interactions arising from many different areas of psychology and neuroscience. The present issue of Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience provides a sampling of some of the latest research from a number of these different areas. In this introductory article, we provide an overview of the current state of the field, in terms of key research developments and candidate neural mechanisms receiving focused investigation as potential sources of motivation–cognition interaction. However, our primary goal is conceptual: to highlight the distinct perspectives taken by different research areas, in terms of how motivation is defined, the relevant dimensions and dissociations that are emphasized, and the theoretical questions being targeted. Together, these distinctions present both challenges and opportunities for efforts aiming toward a more unified and cross-disciplinary approach. We identify a set of pressing research questions calling for this sort of cross-disciplinary approach, with the explicit goal of encouraging integrative and collaborative investigations directed toward them.