CAN SCIENCE AND RELIGION RESPOND TO CLIMATE CHANGE?

With the challenge of communicating climate science in the United States and making progress in international negotiations on climate change there is a need for other approaches. The moral issues of ecological degradation and climate justice need to be integrated into social consciousness, political legislation, and climate treaties. Both science and religion can contribute to this integration with differentiated language but shared purpose. Recognizing the limits of both science and religion is critical to finding a way forward for addressing the critical challenges of climate change. How we value nature and human–Earth relations is crucial to this. We need a broader environmental ethics in dialogue with the science of climate change.     

员工非伦理行为如何招致同事攻击:道义公正视角

通过整合理性判断与道义公正模型,聚焦非伦理行为实施者被同事攻击的现象,提出员工的非伦理行为导致同事道义不公正,进而引发同事的攻击行为。并且,这个过程分别受到伦理领导的正向影响和任务互依性的负向影响。通过分析265组来自浙江省一家大型制造企业一线员工的双点数据,结果表明同事道义不公正在员工非伦理行为与其被同事攻击之间起到了中介作用;伦理领导正向调节了非伦理行为对同事道义不公正的影响,即伦理领导增强了员工非伦理行为对同事道义不公正的正向作用,从而导致同事攻击行为的产生;任务互依性负向调节了同事道义不公正与攻击行为之间的正向关系,并且减弱了同事道义不公正在员工非伦理行为与攻击行为之间的中介作用。研究结果为控制和预防职场非伦理行为提供了理论依据和实践启示。     

社会公正与政治信任：民众对政府的合作行为机制

胡锦涛在中共十八大上提出：必须坚持维护社会公平正义。对社会公正的认知直接决定着民众的政治信任, 进而影响民众对政府的合作。近年来频发的群体性事件即是非合作行为的典型表征。然而, 国内外研究中至今没有直接探讨社会公正与政治信任影响合作行为的实证支持, 更无法进一步揭示其作用于合作行为的过程和条件。鉴于此, 本研究将社会公正分为分配公正和程序公正, 将政治信任分为工具信任和情感信任, 采用实验室研究、现场研究和问卷调查研究相结合的方法, 探讨社会公正对合作行为的过程机制, 建立其通过工具信任和情感信任作用于合作行为的双路径模型; 并进一步分析结果依赖性对这一路径模型的调节作用。本研究有望提出社会公正与政治信任影响合作行为的双路径模型及其调节变量, 一方面在理论上深化和拓展本领域的研究, 另一方面实践中通过提升公正感、强化过程变量(政治信任)、干预调节变量(结果依赖性)等策略促进合作行为。     

The Liberating Awareness

The purpose of this article is to reflect on the search for racial justice as a call from God, using biblical readings and documents produced by the World Council of Churches (WCC). It is anchored in the increasingly intense challenges that emerge in this respect in Brazil, a country whose Indigenous peoples were annihilated in its colonization process, and which up until the 19th century received the largest flow of enslaved Africans in the world. The article combines the Latin American methodology “See, Judge, Act” with the theological methodology of the WCC's Pilgrimage of Justice and Peace and its three steps: “Celebrating Gifts,” “Visiting the Wounds,” and “Transforming Injustice.” The first part of the paper reflects the “See” and exposes the expressions of everyday racism in Brazil. The second part presents the “Judge,” seeking references to the challenge of racial justice in the Bible and in ecumenical reflection. The third and final section, “Act,” reflects on the possibility for transforming racial injustices, sharing experiences from Brazil as well as one of the Pilgrim Team Visits organized by the WCC in 2019.     

程序公正及其心理机制

程序公正是组织公正的重要成分。自从Thibaut和Walker（1975）提出程序公正的概念以后,程序公正被引入了很多领域的研究,得到了极大的发展,但是程序公正的内容需要整合统一。发言权效应和尊重效应讨论了影响程序公正判断的因素,个人利益模型和团体价值模型则分析了其内在的心理机制。程序公正影响了大量与工作有关的态度和行为,并与分配结果产生了交互作用,其内在机制也在文章中得到了讨论。     

罗尔斯“分配的正义观”与诺齐克“持有的正义观”对照研究

分配正当性的根据是什么 ?人的基本权利与平等的要件如何分配才是符合正义的 ?罗尔斯和诺齐克从两个向度上对此作了深入研究。罗尔斯从平等的权利出发 ,主张用“公平正义的两个原则”来取代功利主义 ,认为除非有充足理由证明应当不平等 ,否则就应当平等。并要求依据“公平的正义原则”分配公共资源和自由体系 ;诺齐克从人的不可剥夺的权利出发 ,认为除非有充足理由证明应当平等 ,否则就应当不平等 ,通过“资格”理论确立“持有”的正当性。在功利主义、财产权、国家的作用、自由平等、分配模式和社会稳定的意义等方面 ,罗尔斯与诺齐克的观点也各有契合与对立。     

Social comparison processes in the experience of personal relative deprivation

Drawing on social comparison and equity theories, we investigated the role that perceived similarity of a comparison target plays in how resentful people feel about their relative financial status. In Study 1, participants tended to choose a comparison target who was better off, and they selected a target they perceived to be more similar than dissimilar along dimensions that surrounded their financial outcomes. In Study 1, perceived relative disadvantage was positively associated with resentment regardless of the perceived similarity of the comparison target. The results of Studies 2 to 5b clarified these findings by showing that being both similar and dissimilar to a target can cause resentment depending on the context. Using hypothetical and real social comparisons, we found that people are more dissatisfied with their financial outcomes when their comparative targets have the same background qualifications (i.e., are similar) but are financially better off (Studies 2, 3b, 4, and 5b). However, we also found that when the comparative financial contexts were similar (i.e., equal affluence), participants were more dissatisfied when their target for comparison had lower qualifications (i.e., was dissimilar; Studies 2, 3a, 4, and 5a). In all cases, perceptions of unfairness mediated the effects of social comparison on financial dissatisfaction. Taken together, these studies address some of the ambiguities around what it means to be similar to a target in the context of social comparisons of affluence, and they underscore the importance of perceived unfairness in the link between social comparison and resentment with one's financial status.     

Global Distributive Justice

The paper discusses the problem of global distributive justice. It proposes to distinguish between principles for the domestic and for the global or intersocietal distribution of wealth. It is argued that there may be a plurality of partly diverging domestic conceptions of distributive justice, not all of which need to be liberal egalitarian conceptions. It is maintained, however, that principles regulating the intersocietal distribution of wealth have to be egalitarian principles. This claim is defended against Rawls's argument in The Law of Peoples that egalitarian principles of distributive justice should not be applied globally. Moreover, it is explained in detail, why Rawls's "duty of assistance to burdened societies" cannot be an appropriate substitute for a global principle of distributive justice.     

What We Deserve, and how We Reciprocate

Samuel Scheffler says, “none of the most prominent contemporary versions of philosophical liberalism assigns a significant role to desert at the level of fundamental principle.” To the extent that this is true, the most prominent contemporary versions of philosophical liberalism are mistaken. In particular, there is an aspect of what we do to make ourselves deserving that, although it has not been discussed in the literature, plays a central role in everyday moral life, and for good reason. As with desert, reciprocity inspires skepticism. What Allen Buchanan calls justice as reciprocity implies that duties of justice obtain only among those who can do each other favors. So characterized, justice as reciprocity is at best only a part of justice – a part that is silent on duties between people who have no favors to offer each other. Still, the more modest root idea of reciprocity – the idea that returning favors is at very least a good thing – remains compelling. What can we say on behalf of this root idea? This article is part of a larger work on the elements of justice. Both parts of it begin with and build on James Rachels’ seminal paper “What People Deserve.”     

分配公正、程序公正、互动公正影响效果的差异

以大学生奖学金评比为例,探讨了组织公正各维度影响效果的差异。以661名大学生为被试,采用2×2×2的完全随机设计,以情境故事法（scenarios）呈现刺激,研究了奖学金评比中分配公正、程序公正、互动公正对大学生学习投入、班级荣誉感、班级归属感、与辅导员的关系的影响。结果表明,组织公正三个维度与效果变量之间存在清晰的对应影响关系：分配公正主要影响具体、以个人为参照的效果变量;程序公正主要影响与组织有关的效果变量;互动公正主要影响与上司有关的效果变量。