The ‘should’ in conceptual engineering

Several philosophers have inquired into the metaphysical limits of conceptual engineering: ‘Can we engineer? And if so, to what extent?’. This paper is not concerned with answering these questions. It does concern itself, however, with the limits of conceptual engineering, albeit in a largely unexplored sense: it cares about the normative, rather than about the metaphysical limits thereof. I first defend an optimistic claim: I argue that the ameliorative project has, so far, been too modest; there is little value theoretic reason to restrict the project to remedying deficient representational devices, rather than go on a more ambitious quest: conceptual improvement. That being said, I also identify a limitation to the optimistic claim: I show that the ‘should’ in ameliorative projects suffers from a ‘wrong-kind-of-reasons’ problem. Last but not least, I sketch a proposal of normative constraining meant to address both the above results. The proposal gives primacy to epistemic constraints: accordingly, a concept should be ameliorated only insofar as this does not translate into epistemic loss.     

Righteous or self‐righteous anger? Justice sensitivity moderates defensive outrage at a third‐party harm‐doer

While bystanders' outrage over moral transgressions may represent a genuine desire to restore justice, such expressions can also be self‐serving—alleviating guilt and bolstering one's moral status. Four studies examined whether individual differences in observer justice sensitivity (JS_O) moderate the degree to which outrage at third‐party harm‐doing reflects concerns about one's own moral identity rather than justice per se. Among participants low (vs. high) in JS_O, feelings of guilt predicted greater outrage and desire to punish a corporation's sweatshop labor practices (Studies 1 & 2). Furthermore, affirming one's personal moral identity reduced outrage and support for punishing a corporate harm‐doer among those low, but not high in JS_O (Studies 3 & 4). Similar moderation was absent for other forms of justice sensitivity and just world beliefs. Effects were not explained by negative affect, empathy, personal harm, or political orientation. Results suggest that JS_O uniquely differentiates defensive and justice‐driven moral outrage (150/150).     

Feminist identity and program characteristics in the development of trainees’ social advocacy

Feminism, multiculturalism, and social justice (SJ) are closely related constructs, with an important shared emphasis on societal barriers and client empowerment. Yet, research on the relationships between the three variables in their links to counselor advocacy remains scarce. Employing the Input–Environment–Outcome framework, this study examined the unique contributions of 235 female trainees’ feminist identity, training environment SJ supports, and training multicultural focus in explaining trainees’ advocacy using a three-step hierarchical MMLR model. Findings revealed that all three factors were important to trainees’ advocacy. However, the extent to which each factor influenced advocacy varied. For instance, the more strongly identified trainees were with the Feminist Identity Active Commitment stage, the more likely they were to engage at all four levels of advocacy. Conversely, the more aligned trainees were with Passive Acceptance, the less likely they were to empower clients. Moreover, although both training environment SJ support and multicultural focus were influential, SJ training environment was a better predictor of trainee’s advocacy than multicultural training environment. These findings not only highlight the distinctions between SJ and multiculturalism, but also argue for the importance of SJ training in addition to multicultural training. Implications for theories, training, and practice are discussed.