Public Space

“Public space” is the space where individuals see and are seen by others as they engage in public affairs. Hannah Arendt links this space with “public freedom.” The being of such freedom, she asserts, depends on its appearing. It consists of “deeds and words which are meant to appear, whose very existence hinges on appearance.” Such appearance, however, requires the public space. Reflecting on Arendt’s remarks, a number of questions arise: What does the dependence of freedom on public space tell us about the nature of freedom? How does public freedom relate to the freedom of a private individual? Does the latter also depend on its appearing? Which is generatively prior: freedom or public space, i.e., the actions that publicly manifest freedom or the space required for their appearance? How does public power shape this space? In this article, I approach these questions through a phenomenological study of public space.     

大五和组织公平感对进谏行为的影响研究

以361名长三角地区17家国有企业白领员工为样本,本研究探索了大五个性、组织公平知觉与进谏行为之间的关系。结果表明:责任感、外向性与进谏行为具有正相关,神经质、开放性与进谏行为呈负相关;组织公平知觉对进谏行为具有显著促进作用;此外,组织公平知觉对部分个性特征,如神经质与进谏行为之间的关系具有缓冲作用,高公平知觉会削弱神经质对进谏行为的负面效应。文章还对研究结果做了相关讨论。     

社会公平:构建社会主义和谐社会的伦理基础

社会公平是社会主义最核心的价值追求,是构建社会主义和谐社会的伦理基础。社会公平是当代社会经济发展的基本理念,也是一个由机会平等、按贡献分配以及社会调节等原则组成的基本规则体系,具体表现为权利公平、机会公平、规则公平和分配结果的相对公平。在社会转型时期,必须坚持社会公平原则,对社会的有限资源和权利义务进行有效而合理的配置和安排,才能建立公正合理的社会经济生活秩序,建设一个经济繁荣、政治文明、社会秩序稳定、人民安居乐业的和谐社会。     

自由主义:伦理内涵的嬗变与困境

任何完整的政治理论都有其特定的价值结构,为其现实政治主张、制度结构、政策机制的提供伦理支持,并随着时代政治、经济、文化条件的发展而变换其内涵。西方自由主义政治理论的发展分为启蒙时期、功利主义、现代自由主义等重要阶段,自然权利、功利原则和社会公正分别是其不同时代的核心价值要求。阐释和分析自由主义的伦理内涵变换及其理论和现实困境,为了解当代西方自由主义的价值变换及政策走向提供了一个有益的理论视角。     

西方公共行政及其正义价值

公共行政本质上所具有的伦理特性以及公共行政理论和范式在不同发展时期所具有的不同特点和价值诉求,使得从伦理的角度对公共行政进行审视成为可能。公共行政正义价值既体现了民主社会自由、平等的价值追求,也蕴涵着公共行政本身所具有的对公共利益的价值取向,同时也是公共行政人员德性的体现。     

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。     

The Global Scope of Justice

In this paper, I examine the question of the scope of justice, in a not unusual distributive, egalitarian, and universalistic framework. Part I outlines some central features of the egalitarian theory of justice I am proposing. According to such a conception, justice is – at least prima facie – immediately universal, and therefore global. It does not morally recognize any judicial boundaries or limits. Part II examines whether, even from a universalistic perspective, there are moral or pragmatic grounds for rejecting or limiting the global scope of justice. In particular, I scrutinize five universalistic objections: (1) the principle of "moral division of labor"; (2) the connection between cooperation and distributive justice; (3) the primacy of democracy; (4) the dangers of a world state; and (5) political-pragmatic reasons. I intend to show that these objections cannot undermine the strong normative claims of global justice. At the most, political-pragmatic reasons speak in favor of initially striving for somewhat less, in order to receive more general backing.     

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.     

Drug Use History, Drug Test Consequences, and the Perceived Fairness of Organizational Drug Testing Programs

We explored the effects of drug use history (current/recent user of drugs, used/tried drugs, never tried drugs) and a measure of drug test consequences (termination versus rehabilitation) on the perceived fairness of organizational drug testing (DT). Data were collected as part of a statewide telephone survey of the general adult population. Personal drug use history and DT consequences interacted such that DT consequences were related to DT fairness only for nonusers who had past drug use experience. The importance of past drug use in understanding reactions to DT are discussed.     

Citizens' Sense of Justice and the Legal System

When an actor commits a wrong action, citizens have perceptions of the kind of responsibility the actor incurs, the degree to which the act was mitigated or justified, and the appropriate punishment for the actor. The legislatively mandated law of criminal courts, statutes, and criminal codes deals with the same issues. Experimental evidence shows that there are important discrepancies between the principles that people and legal codes use to assign responsibility. That is, the moral retributive-justice principles that people use are sometimes in conflict with the directions in which modern code drafters are taking criminal law. These discrepancies may cause citizens to feel alienated from authority, and to reduce their voluntary compliance with legal codes.