Interpreting conjoined noun phrases and conjoined clauses: Collective versus distributive preferences

Two experiments are reported that show that introducing event participants in a conjoined noun phrase (NP) favours a single event (collective) interpretation, while introducing them in separate clauses favours a separate events (distributive) interpretation. In Experiment 1, acceptability judgements were speeded when the bias of a predicate toward separate events versus a single event matched the presumed bias of how the subjects' referents were introduced (as conjoined noun phrases or in conjoined clauses). In Experiment 2, reading of a phrase containing an anaphor following conjoined noun phrases was facilitated when the anaphor was they, relative to when it was neither/each of them; the opposite pattern was found when the anaphor followed conjoined clauses. We argue that comprehension was facilitated when the form of an anaphor was appropriate for how its antecedents were introduced. These results address the very general problem of how we individuate entities and events when presented with a complex situation and show that different linguistic forms can guide how we construe a situation. The results also indicate that there is no general penalty for introducing the entities or events separately—in distinct clauses as “split” antecedents.     

Addressing social determinants of health: Supporting ex-offenders’ employment through use of the Systems Theory Framework

There remains a need for counselors well-prepared to work with ex-offenders. As counselors aim to meet ethical obligations toward advocacy, they often seek to address social determinants of health (SDOH) challenges. Those working with ex-offenders should be aware of unique employment challenges ex-offenders may face and possess a baseline knowledge of the justice system for pertinent collaboration. This paper provides an explanation of how the Systems Theory Framework may be used to address ex-offenders’ employment-related needs through addressing SDOH challenges and collaborating with the justice system. Implications for employment counselors, counselor educators, and supervisors and steps for future research conclude.     

Third-party punishment and symbolic intragroup status

Retributive justice theory has suggested two processes by which punishment is psychologically satisfying to victims of injustice: leveling the power imbalance caused by the transgression and revalidating social consensus over the importance of the rules, norms, and values violated by the offense. The current investigation proposes a third symbolic function that has not yet been identified as a psychological consequence of punishment: confirmation of the victim's membership status in the group (i.e., intragroup standing or respect). Three studies identified perceptions of intragroup membership status as following from third-party punishment, partly explaining the effect of punishment on a victim's group identification. Study 1 showed that, following the experience of an injustice, punishment prevented perceived membership status threats from resulting in victim disidentification. Study 2 showed that third-party desires to punish increased subsequent identification by symbolically communicating the ingroup's regard for the victim, even when the offender did not actually suffer the effects of third-party sanctions. Finally, Study 3 showed that punishment only implied membership status when the act of punishment was instigated by an ingroup authority and was thus identity-relevant. Taken together, these studies offer the first examination of membership status as a relevant concern underlying retributive justice.     

马克思与罗尔斯论资本主义及市场的正义

马克思和罗尔斯似乎有着十分不同的正义观。马克思主张,正义概念的功能,在意识形态上表现为以主导生产模式所要求的操行,作为具有普遍约束性的律令。罗尔斯则主张,正义是社会制度的第一美德,它的法则可能被所有这样的人所认可:他们公正、合理地商讨的问题,是如何公平划分彼此之间在社会合作中的负担和利益。尽管体现在马克思和罗尔斯立场之间的种种重要不同仍然存在,但笔者认为,这两种正义观上显然不同的立场,是能够调和的。尽管受到黑格尔和康德的不同影响,马克思和罗尔斯的观点还是能显示出一致之处。在提出明确的正义政治概念时,罗尔斯认为,可以接受的正义原则,必须是在社会体制中能够实行的。这导致他的“康德式构成主义”,向黑格尔的观点靠近,在这一点上,马克思奠定了他对普遍的、社会先验的正义原则的拒斥。笔者认为,马克思和罗尔斯两人所追问的,都可以被看作是何种社会制度能够实现作为公平的正义原则。不过,其间仍有两点重要不同。首先,马克思憧憬的,似乎是一种超越休谟和罗尔斯所谓“正义环境”的社会,而对罗尔斯(2001,P177)来说,超越正义环境的社会则是乌托邦。其次,马克思认为,作为社会基础的市场关系应该被超越,因为这些市场关系天然地包含着生产者与生产的社会过程以及社会劳动产品的异化。虽然在超越正义环境的社会里,市场的消亡也许可能,罗尔斯却宣称,在要求必须公正解决竞争的任何社会里,市场消亡均不可能。笔者认为,如果将马克思对市场的拒绝,看作是从根本上拒绝“商品拜物教”,那么马克思和罗尔斯的立场就能调和。笔者的结论是,除了马克思关于未来无阶级社会概念中含有理想成分外,在资本主义及市场的正义观上,马克思和罗尔斯的立场相当接近。     

经济正义:当代伦理学面临的重大课题

正义是一个历史范畴。人类对正义的追求经历了一个由个人正义到社会正义、由政治正义到经济正义的过程。随着经济关系成为支配社会发展的主要力量,经济发展的单向度价值取向的危害日益严重,社会不公正现象在经济领域中日益凸现,经济正义已成为当代社会正义理论中最重要、最具有社会意义的内容和形式。     

Wellness as Fairness

I argue that distinct conditions of justice lead to diverse wellness outcomes through a series of psychosocial processes. Optimal conditions of justice, suboptimal conditions of justice, vulnerable conditions of injustice, and persisting conditions of injustice lead to thriving, coping, confronting, and suffering, respectively. The processes that mediate between optimal conditions of justice and thriving include the promotion of responsive conditions, the prevention of threats, individual pursuit, and avoidance of comparisons. The mechanisms that mediate between suboptimal conditions of justice and coping include resilience, adaptation, compensation, and downward comparisons. Critical experiences, critical consciousness, critical action, and righteous comparisons mediate between vulnerable conditions of injustice and confrontation with the system. Oppression, internalization, helplessness, and upward comparisons mediate between persisting conditions of injustice and suffering. These psychosocial processes operate within and across personal, interpersonal, organizational and community contexts. Different types of justice are hypothesized to influence well-being within each context. Intrapersonal injustice operates at the personal level, whereas distributive, procedural, relational, and developmental justice impact interpersonal well-being. At the organizational level, distributive, procedural, relational and informational justice influence well-being. Finally, at the community level, distributive, procedural, retributive, and cultural justice support community wellness. Data from a variety of sources support the suggested connections between justice and well-being.     

Traditional prejudice and justice judgments: Does bias suppression moderate the relationship?

This research investigated how the relationship between prejudice and intergroup inequalities with justice judgments is modulated by individual differences in self-regulation of bias through suppression. The first study conducted among 170 White British adolescents revealed that the link between racism and intergroup inequality in justice judgments was moderated by bias suppression. Prejudice, bias suppression, and blatant as well as subtle justice judgments were assessed in a second study carried out with 103 Canadian White adolescents. Bias suppression moderated the link between racist beliefs toward Aboriginals and intergroup inequality in punitive rulings. Racism translated into intergroup inequality in the potential for rehabilitation, irrespective of the level of bias suppression. The role of bias suppression is discussed.     

从道德本位到权利本位的转换——梁启超《新民说》审视

梁启超《新民说》是对以《大学》为代表的中国传统“新民”思想的改造和发展。他以民权、独立、自由的资产阶级“公德”代替以伦理道德为核心的封建主义的“私德” ,用中西文化中的优秀道德传统构建新国民 ,实现了从以伦理道德为本位的旧道德向以权利为本位的新道德的转换 ,“旧国民”向“新国民”的转换。     

Intention-based evaluations of distributive actions by 4-month-olds

Four-month-olds’ ability to consider the intentions of agents performing distributive actions was investigated in four experiments, using the Violation of Expectation paradigm (VoE) (Experiments 1–3) and the Preferential Looking paradigm (Experiment 4). In Experiment 1, infants were presented with two events showing two types of failed attempts to perform a distribution. In an attempt to distribute fairly, the distributor first tried to reach one of the recipients to deliver an apple, he failed, and then attempted to reach the other recipient to deliver a second apple and also failed. In an attempt to distribute unfairly, a different distributor tried unsuccessfully to bring resources always to the same recipient. Infants looked reliably longer at failed fair distribution events, suggesting that they did not just react to the actions outcomes and they attended to agents' intentions. Experiments 2 and 3 assessed alternative explanations based on perceptual factors or affiliative behaviors. In Experiment 4, during the test trials, infants were shown both distributors simultaneously and they preferred to look at the fair rather than at the unfair distributor. Overall, these findings reveal an early ability to take into account distributors’ intentions and a preference for watching agents that tried to distribute resources fairly.     

正当与相称:公正之内涵界定

公正是当前伦理学研究的热点问题,又是个跨学科的难题解决这个难题的起点就是——公正是什么？本人认为公正是人们社会交往活动中利益的正当的相称关系（或行为）“正当”是其质的规定;“相称”是其量的规定,“正当与相称”体现了公正范畴之历史性和客观性的统一。