Caring for the Suffering: Meeting the Ebola Crisis Responsibly

The current Ebola virus epidemic in Western Africa appears to be spiraling out of control. The worst-case projections suggested that the unchecked spread could result in almost 1.4 million cases by the end of January 2015 with a case fatality rate of at least 50%. The United States and European nations have begun to respond in earnest with promises of supplies, isolation beds, and trained health care personnel in an effort to contain the epidemic and care for the sick. However, there is neither a vaccine nor specific treatment for Ebola infection, and therapy is ideally centered on supportive care. I have previously argued that the provision of palliative care is obligatory during an overwhelming health catastrophe, notably pandemic influenza. Since affected Ebola patients have best outcomes with technologically advanced intensive care—resources in scarce supply in the area—I suggest that the only acceptable approach to large numbers of very sick, dying, and suffering Ebola patients who overwhelm the resources available to successfully manage them is effective palliative care. However, this could hasten death in this vulnerable population and hence, while ethically and medically justifiable, is not without social risk.     

Human and Animal Subjects of Research: The Moral Significance of Respect versus Welfare

Human beings with diminished decision-making capacities are usually thought to require greater protections from the potential harms of research than fully autonomous persons. Animal subjects of research receive lesser protections than any human beings regardless of decision-making capacity. Paradoxically, however, it is precisely animals’ lack of some characteristic human capacities that is commonly invoked to justify using them for human purposes. In other words, for humans lesser capacities correspond to greater protections but for animals the opposite is true. Without explicit justification, it is not clear why or whether this should be the case. Ethics regulations guiding human subject research include principles such as respect for persons—and related duties—that are required as a matter of justice while regulations guiding animal subject research attend only to highly circumscribed considerations of welfare. Further, the regulations guiding research on animals discount any consideration of animal welfare relative to comparable human welfare. This paper explores two of the most promising justifications for these differences␣between the two sets of regulations. The first potential justification points to lesser moral status for animals on the basis of their lesser capacities. The second potential justification relies on a claim about the permissibility of moral partiality as␣found in common morality. While neither potential justification is sufficient to justify the regulatory difference as it stands, there is possible common ground between supporters of some regulatory difference and those rejecting the current difference.     

Procedural fairness and endorsement of prototypical leaders: Leader benevolence or follower control?

This research explored why strongly identifying followers endorse prototypical leaders by addressing the role of procedural fairness in this process. We introduced the distinction between procedural fairness rules relating to leader benevolence (i.e., whether the leader supports the group’s interests) and follower control (i.e., whether followers can influence the leader’s decisions). We predicted that strongly identifying group members endorse prototypical leaders because they perceive such leaders as acting in line with benevolence related fairness rules rather than because such leaders are perceived as giving followers control. An organizational field study and a laboratory experiment revealed support for these ideas. Our results thus provide insights into why prototypical leaders are endorsed among strongly identifying followers. They also have implications for the procedural fairness literature in showing that frequently studied procedural fairness rules (e.g., voice) do not explain endorsement of leaders believed to support the group’s interests.     

No Justice Without Democracy: A Deliberative Approach to the Global Distribution of Wealth

Abstract

The debate about global distributive justice is characterized by an often stark opposition between universalistic approaches, advocating an egalitarian global redistribution of wealth (Beitz, Pogge, Barry, Tan), and particularistic positions, aiming to justify a restriction of redistribution to the domestic community (D. Miller, R. Miller, Blake, Nagel, Rawls). I argue that an approach starting from the deliberative model of democracy (Habermas) can overcome this opposition. On the one hand, the increasingly global scope of economic interactions implies that the range of individuals concerned with the redistribution of wealth should also be increasingly universal. On the other hand, the need for democratic deliberation refers to the fact that demands of justice should be contextual and should take into account the particular circumstances, needs and values of the people concerned. Both concerns can be realized simultaneously only within a multi‐layered democratic system in which redistribution is a concern at the domestic, the international and the global level.     

Avoiding Authoritarianism: On the Problem of Justification in Contemporary Critical Social Theory

Abstract

Critical social theories look critically at the ways in which particular social arrangements hinder human flourishing, with a view to bringing about social change for the better. In this they are guided by the idea of a good society in which the identified social impediments to human flourishing would once and for all have been removed. The question of how these guiding ideas of the good life can be justified as valid across socio‐cultural contexts and historical epochs is the most fundamental difficulty facing critical social theories today. This problem of justification, which can be traced back to certain key shifts in the modern Western social imaginary, calls on contemporary theories to negotiate the tensions between the idea of context‐transcendent validity and their own anti‐authoritarian impulses. Habermas makes an important contribution towards resolving the problem, but takes a number of wrong turnings.     

观察者公正敏感性对不公正信息加工的影响

为考查观察者公正敏感性对不公正信息加工（注意、解释）的影响,该研究开展了两个实验研究。在实验一中,让被试观看不公正影片剪辑或中性剪辑后,要求他们完成视觉探测任务,判断探测刺激是在不公正词汇还是中性词汇的左边或右边;在实验二中,让被试对一个模糊的暗含不公正意义的影片剪辑中的主角进行公正性评价。结果表明,当被试不公正概念被激活后,观察者公正敏感性高的被试比观察者公正敏感性低的被试对不公正信息的注意加工更集中和更自动,同时他们对模糊的信息解释为更不公正。     

Gender-related inequalities in the division of family work in close relationships: A social psychological perspective

We offer a social psychological perspective on gender-related inequalities in close relationships and integrate two lines of research that have focused on the intrapersonal perceptions and interpersonal consequences respectively of the gendered division of labour. We start with a brief summary of research on gender-related inequalities in the division of labour and discuss prior explanations and paradigms. We then address the extent to which spouses consider the division of labour as fair and the factors that contribute to perceptions of (un)fairness. Central to our argument is the distributive justice framework (<citeref rid="b76">Major, 1987</citeref>, <citeref rid="b77">1993</citeref>; <citeref rid="b113">Thompson, 1991</citeref>) which claims that fairness judgements are affected by people's wants and values, comparison standards, and justifications. In the following section, we address the question of whether dissatisfaction over the division of labour causes relationship conflict and how couples manage these conflicts. The main argument is that conflict over the division of labour generally comprises an asymmetrical conflict structure (with wives as complainants and husbands as defenders of the status quo), which elicits asymmetrical conflict interaction patterns (i.e., demand/withdraw interaction) that result in asymmetrical outcomes (i.e., status quo maintenance). Finally, we summarise the main conclusions and address contributions to theory and research as well as directions for further research.     

Just Promise: Reformulating Justice as a Practice of the Gift

The triune God's justice is best understood as promised justice. Promised justice enables Christian practices that critique and end injustice.     

Sense of fairness in the division of labor in close relationships: Procedure and gender role ideology

The present study examined whether the procedures used in establishing a couple's division of labor and each partner's gender role ideology have a significant impact on the perception of fairness in the division of labor. The data collection involved conducting a questionnaire survey of 181 Japanese participants who shared basic household work and paid work. The results from a multiple regression analysis presented a clear pattern of sex differences in the way and degree to which fairness was perceived. In the model for women, the variables of the procedure and gender role ideology had significant predictive power. In particular, the interactive communication procedure was a powerful predictor of women's sense of fairness. In contrast, among men the perception of fairness in the division of labor did not have a significant relation to the variables of the procedure and gender role ideology.