Desert in liberal justice: beyond institutional guarantees

I argue that a theory of distributive justice is sensitive to desert if and only if it (1) does not require an institutional scheme that prevents individuals from treating one another as they deserve, and (2) requires a desert ethos. A desert ethos is a set of principles that, though not embodied in a society’s basic coercive structure, nevertheless governs interpersonal relations between citizens. These two necessary conditions are jointly sufficient for ‘giving desert its due’ in a theory of justice. I therefore reject the received view that a desert-sensitive theory must endeavor to guarantee distributions patterned according to desert.     

绩效考核满意度对工作退缩行为的影响:有调节的中介效应

绩效考核满意度对员工工作行为的影响和作用机制一直是组织行为领域研究的重点。本研究采用《绩效考核满意度量表》、《在职行为量表》等研究工具,抽取419名在职员工,考察绩效考核满意度与工作退缩行为之间的关系以及组织公平感、道德型领导在其二者关系上的作用机制。结果发现:(1)绩效考核满意度与工作退缩行为之间存在显著负相关。(2)道德型领导调节绩效考核满意度和组织公平感之间的关系。(3)道德型领导调节绩效考核满意度和工作退缩行为之间的关系。(4)道德型领导和绩效考核满意度的交互作用通过分配公平、程序公平影响工作退缩行为。     

If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're so Rich

Many people, including many egalitarian political philosophers, professa belief in equality while enjoying high incomes of which they devotevery little to egalitarian purposes. The article critically examinesways of resolving the putative inconsistency in the stance of thesepeople, in particular, that favouring an egalitarian society has noimplications for behaviour in an unequal one; that what's bad aboutinequality is a social division that philanthropy cannot reduce; thatprivate action cannot ensure that others have good lives; that privateaction can only achieve a ``drop in the ocean'; that private effortis not called for, since justice is a matter for the state to enforce;that private effort cannot remove the fundamental injustice, whichis inequality of power; and that private effort involves an unreasonablylarge psychological burden.     

The Complexity of Justice - A Challenge to the 21st Century

The author discusses two questions, the relation between liberalism and democracy, and the relation between ethics, morality and law. As to the first question, she argues that neither liberalism nor democracy are merely formal. Roughly spoken, it can be said that liberalism stands for negative liberties, whereas democracy stands for positive ones. She observes a non-contingent tension between the ethos of liberalism (personal freedom) and the ethos of democracy (equality; majority rule). It is the task of morality to maintain and restore the balance between these two kinds of ethos. As to the second question, she is worried about the balance between law (legal regulation), ethics, and morality. On the one hand, abolishing legal regulations would amount to abolishing the freedom of the moderns. On the other hand, the substitution of legal regulations for ethical regulations would lead to a similar result: the end of the freedom of the moderns through the homogenisation of life. In the former case, personal support, charity, magnanimity, and caring would get lost, while in the latter there would be no escape from community pressure towards uniformity.     

德沃金的资源平等论探微

德沃金根据抽象的平等权理论对自由主义的分配正义理论作了新的阐发,提出了资源平等论,这一理论构想包括拍卖模式和虚拟保险市场两个部分,分别解决初始分配和再次分配的平等问题。该理论特别强调个人的自由选择权利。这一理论的完备性还有待进一步检验。     

The moral basis of liberal education

The moral right to liberal education involves issues of distribution and of content. The former issue bears on the distribution of educational resources. The latter issue bears on the issue of multiculturalism. Both issues are discussed from the standpoint of equal rights.Presented as the first Distinguished Lecture to the Association for Philosophy of Education at its meeting in New York, 28 December 1991.     

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。     

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.     

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。