Introduction to the Special Issue

The authors introduce the special issue of the Journal of Counseling & Development on “Integrating the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies Into Practice, Research, and Advocacy.” They first discuss the rationale and importance of the special issue, as well as the transformative opportunities that the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (MSJCC; Ratts, Singh, Nassar-McMillan, Butler, & McCullough, 2015) have to influence counseling and the broader helping professions. Then they provide an overview the special issue articles and their respective contributions. They conclude by explicating the challenges and opportunities in integrating and implementing the MSJCC into counseling practice, research, and advocacy.     

The Past Guides the Future: Implementing the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies

The authors describe the ways in which the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (MSJCC; Ratts, Singh, Nassar-McMillan, Butler, & McCullough, 2015) can be viewed from a human rights framework and as the latest iteration in the long history of the multicultural and social justice counseling competency movement. MSJCC implementation and integration are explored, and recommendations for innovating the MSJCC are described.     

Embodying the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competency Movement: Voices From the Field

This article illustrates counselors’ embodiment, over time, of the multicultural and social justice counseling competency movement leading to the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (Ratts, Singh, Nassar-McMillan, Butler, & McCullough, 2015). The authors discuss the multicultural and social justice counseling competency movement in the context of relationships as appropriate to the counseling field. Aligned with contemporary research perspectives, the authors focus on the lived experiences of 2 pioneering social justice and multicultural competency advocates, Drs. Patricia Arredondo and Derald Wing Sue. The authors integrate scholarship with these historical and personal perspectives, as well as their own, to demonstrate the ways in which people and movements drive counseling leadership and advocacy.     

“心为太极”说在朱子学中的诠释

朱子在《易学启蒙》中曾引用邵雍“心为太极”之说。此说与朱子学的固有观念似乎相矛盾。但“心为太极”说在朱子学的框架内至少曾出现如下三种理解:朱子本人以“心”为易图的中心方位来解释“太极虚中之象”的“环中说”;在朱子后学中具有广泛影响的禀赋说;现代学者所揭示出的“境界说”。三种说法并不矛盾,“环中说”背后所体现的是“太极不离阴阳”的活动性原则,它与“禀赋说”所代表的实体性原则相辅相成,二者的统一就是“境界说”。此外,“心为太极”还有一层工夫的含义,对于提示学者在自家身上体贴太极观念具有重要的意义。     

First steps toward an understanding of procedural fairness

In four experiments, we tested whether 20‐month‐old infants are sensitive to violations of procedural impartiality. Participants were shown videos in which help was provided in two different ways. A main character provided help to two other agents either impartially, by helping them at the same time, or in a biased way, by helping one agent almost immediately while the other after a longer delay. Infants looked reliably longer at the biased than at the unbiased help scenarios despite the fact that in both scenarios help was provided to each beneficiary. This suggests that human infants can attend to departures from impartiality and, in their second year, they already show an initial understanding of procedural fairness.     

From Primary Goods to Capability

While being generally appreciative of John Rawls’ theory of justice, this paper aims to describe and compare the two metrics of justice—primary goods and capability, and through critiques and responses between Amartya Sen and John Rawls, I argue that the capability metric is a better project than the social primary goods metric insofar as it can provide a more practical path for rethinking the concept of social justice, as well as a better approach in resolving fundamental social justice issues in China.     

Evolution and the nonlegal equivalent of aggressive criminal behavior

Within the framework of modern evolutionary theory, arguments are reviewed that the nonlegal equivalent of aggressive criminal behavior may have evolved by natural selection among mammals, particularly primates, as part of their overall approach to reproduction. If so, the commission of aggressive crimes (or their nonlegal equivalent) by humans, and even efforts to prevent fellow social group members from being victimized by aggressive crimes, may also be partially explainable in natural selection terms. The plausibility of this deduction was explored, first, by specifying the three elements that a human act must have to be regarded as an aggressive crime. Summarily, these were that (1) injury to a victim must be a likely result of the act, (2) the act must be intended, and (3) the act must elicit negative responses from those witnessing it. The primate behavior literature was examined for evidence that some behavior of nonhumans met all three conditions. Affirmative results were obtained. Therefore, while further research is in order, human aggressive criminal behavior, as well as human efforts to control it, seem to have close parallels in other primates. This would be consistent with the notion that aggressive criminal behavior (along with its condemnation by fellow group members) is part of a social system produced and sustained by natural selection.     

蒯因和伽登佛斯对绿蓝悖论"解决"思路评析

关于绿蓝问题的讨论一直在持续着。逻辑操作路线更为“本质”的方法,即“自然类’他们的思路。蒯因和伽登佛斯寻求的是比纯粹的语言和和“概念空间”的解决方法,本文试评析     

The relevance of Rawls' principle of justice for research on cognitively impaired patients

An ethical conflict arises when we must performresearch in the interest of future patients,but that this may occasionally injure theinterests of today's patients.In the case of cognitively impaired persons, thequestion arises whether it is compatible withhumane healthcare not only to treat, but alsoto use these patients for research purposes.Some bioethicists and theologians haveformulated a general duty of solidarity, alsopertaining to cognitively impaired persons, as ajustification for research on these persons. Ifone examines this thesis from the theory ofjustice according to John Rawls, it is revealedthat such a duty of solidarity cannotnecessarily be extrapolated from Rawls'conception of justice. This is at least true ofRawls' difference principle, because accordingto the difference principle only those measuresare justifiable which serve the interest of therespective least well off. Those measures whichwould engender additional injury for the leastwell off could not be balanced by any utilityaccording to Rawls.However, John Rawls' difference principleis subordinate to the first principle,which is that each person has an equalright to the most extensive basic libertycompatible with the same liberty for others.These primary goods are determined by thefreedom and integrity of the person.This integrity of decisionally impaired personswould be in danger if one would abstain fromresearch and thus forego the increase inknowledge related to their disease. Thus onecould conclude, at least from Rawls' firstprinciple, that society must take on a duty toguarantee the degrees of freedom forcognitively impaired persons and thus alsosupport the efforts for their healing.     

Ethical Issues in Gestational Surrogacy

The introduction of contraceptive technologies hasresulted in the separation of sex and procreation. Theintroduction of new reproductive technologies (mainlyIVF and embryo transfer) has led not only to theseparation of procreation and sex, but also to there-definition of the terms mother and family.For the purpose of this essay, I will distinguishbetween:1. the genetic mother – the donor of the egg;2. the gestational mother – she who bears and gives birth to the baby;3. the social mother – the woman who raises the child.This essay will deal only with the form of gestationalsurrogacy in which the genetic parents intend to bethe social parents, and the surrogate mother has nogenetic relationship to the child she bears anddelivers. I will raise questions regarding medicalethical aspects of surrogacy and the obligation(s) ofthe physician(s) to the parties involved. I will arguethat the gestational surrogate is “a womb to rent,”that there is great similarity between gestationalcommercial surrogacy and organ transplant marketing.Furthermore, despite claims to freedom of choice andfree marketing, I will claim that gestationalsurrogacy is a form of prostitution and slavery,exploitation of the poor and needy by those who arebetter off. The right to be a parent, although notconstitutional, is intuitive and deeply rooted.However, the issue remains whether this rightoverrules all other rights, and at what price to theparties involved. I will finally raise the followingprovocative question to society: In the interim periodbetween today's limited technology and tomorrow'sextra-corporeal gestation technology (ectogenesis),should utilizing females in PVS (persistent vehetativestate) for gestational surrogacy be sociallyacceptable/permissible – provided they have leftpermission in writing?