The moral basis of liberal education

The moral right to liberal education involves issues of distribution and of content. The former issue bears on the distribution of educational resources. The latter issue bears on the issue of multiculturalism. Both issues are discussed from the standpoint of equal rights.Presented as the first Distinguished Lecture to the Association for Philosophy of Education at its meeting in New York, 28 December 1991.     

Libertarianism vs. Marxism: Reflections on G. A. Cohen‘s Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality

Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality is G.A. Cohens attempt to rescue something of the socialist outlook on society from the challenge of libertarianism, which Cohen identifies with the work of Robert Nozick in his famous book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Sympathizing with the leading idea that a person must belong to himself, and thus be unavailable for forced redistribution of his efforts, Cohen is at pains to reconcile the two. This cannot be done – they are flatly contrary. Moreover, equality is a nonsense principle, calling for such things as equal distribution of natural resources. But resources, as goods, are not natural: all require work to utilize. The only thing exchanged on markets is services, and estimates of value received are relevantly made only by those party to the exchanges in question. Imposition from above on voluntary exchange can only be socially counterproductive.     

Intentional collaboration,predictable complicity,and proactive prevention: U.S. schools’ ethical responsibilities in slowing the school-to-deportation pipeline

ABSTRACT

In the United States, constitutional and statutory law reinforce the right of all children to receive an education, regardless of their citizenship or immigration status. In a time of heightened anti-immigrant sentiment and law enforcement, however, partnerships among school districts, local law enforcement, and the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security subject undocumented and unaccompanied minor students to indefensible levels of risk for detention and deportation. We identify three stances that U.S. schools may take in the face of a potential ‘school-to-deportation pipeline.’ Schools that engage in intentional collaboration actively increase detention and deportation by referring students to immigration officials for criminal, non-criminal, and even non-disciplinary activity. Schools that engage in predictable complicity may not intend to subject their undocumented and unaccompanied minor students to detention or deportation, but still put students at risk by involving police in school policies. We argue that U.S. schools should instead engage in proactive protection of immigrant students and families, including actively resisting federal policies when necessary.     

从伦理辩护到国家权力、个人权利界限的划定——公共卫生领域特殊伦理冲突的和解之道

在流行病防控等公共卫生工作中,为了维护公共健康不得不侵犯传染病患者的个人权利,这是公共卫生领域不同于临床医学的特殊伦理冲突。虽然有学者分别依据“效果论”、“差异原则”和“公共善优先”为公共健康的优先性进行了辩护,但都不能与医学伦理学的个体论视角相融洽。实际上,固守单一的理论视角是伦理冲突和解的最大障碍,只有改变单一视角,才能开启理论的兼容性。伦理辩护必须转化为实践智慧,即必须在公共卫生实践中实现国家权力与个人权利的有序协调,使国家权力和个人权利坚守各自的界限。     

伦理委员会持续审查制度建设探讨

持续审查作为伦理审查的重要环节, 是保护受试者的重要机制。但在我国的伦理审查实践中, 持续审查却一直没有得到应有的重视和规范。究其原因, 不仅是因为相关法律法规的缺失, 还因为在执行层面也缺少相对明确和具体的制度和标准操作规程。在借鉴美国持续审查制度建设相关经验的基础上, 结合北京大学生物医学伦理委员会制度建设实践, 对持续审查的范围、频率、形式、内容和标准等问题展开论述和探讨。     

Panel: What could be Jungian about Human Rights work?

The question of whether Jungian analysts should move beyond the consulting room to engage with mental health issues that pertain to the collective is the focus of this paper. Two narratives are presented: one from the view point of a psychiatrist in Occupied Palestine, the other from the conflicted situation which faces an Israeli analyst. Despite the strong ambivalence that is experienced on both sides, there is a willingness to meet and to take a standpoint without necessarily coming to a resolution. A third position is offered by describing experiences from the South African perspective. The African notion of Ubuntu is offered as a moral entry point that states that community goes beyond one's own; from this point of view, Jungian analysts can do no other than to act.     

Stonewalling through Schizophrenia: An Anti-Gay Rights Culture in Hong Kong?

With its British colonial legacy and Chinese make-up, Hong Kong provides a stimulating stadium and lens through which to examine the validity of the use of “culture” in arguing against homosexuality and the development and protection of the rights of sexual minorities. After a brief account on the legal developments in Hong Kong on homosexuality, this article examines how the argument that Hong Kong has an inherently anti-gay rights culture, which simultaneously emphasizes Confucianism and Christianity, and which the government then uses to stonewall the development and protection of the rights of sexual minorities, merely illuminates an underlying schizophrenia as to what that culture actually is. In the process of my diagnosis, I will also discuss whether Confucianism and Christianity indeed oppose homosexuality and sexual minority rights.

On the Fulfillment of Moral Obligation

This paper considers three general views about the nature of moral obligation and three particular answers (with which these views are typically associated) concerning the following question: if on Monday you lend me a book that I promise to return to you by Friday, what precisely is my obligation to you and what constitutes its fulfillment? The example is borrowed from W.D. Ross, who in The Right and the Good proposed what he called the Objective View of obligation, from which he inferred what is here called the First Answer to the question. In Foundations of Ethics Ross repudiated the Objective View in favor of the Subjective View, from which he inferred a Second Answer. In this paper each of the Objective and Subjective Views and the First and Second Answers are rejected in favor of the Prospective View and a Third Answer. The implications of the Prospective View for another question closely related to the original question are then investigated: what precisely is your right regarding my returning the book and what constitutes its satisfaction?