Climate justice after Paris: a normative framework

This paper puts forward a normative framework to differentiate between the climate-related responsibilities of different countries in the aftermath of the Paris Agreement. It offers reasons for applying the chief moral principles of ‘historical responsibility’ and ‘capacity’ to climate finance instead of climate change mitigation targets. This will (i) provide a normative basis to realize the goal of climate change mitigation while allowing for developing and newly industrialized countries to develop economically and (ii) offer an account of the distributive principles that can regulate climate finance. This is a real-world interpretation of the 1992 UNFCCC principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ that takes into account the progress accomplished at the COP21 in Paris and offers a solution to the still unsolved problem of differentiated responsibilities. This paper offers an application of this proposal to the Green Climate Fund.     

Decisions about a crime: downward and upward counterfactuals

Deciding about people’s responsibility, intentions and need for punishment is particularly hard and it may be often associated with counterfactual thinking, which refers to the creation of mental alternatives to actual events. Ninety-three participants were asked to generate downward or upward counterfactuals regarding a given criminal event and, then, to give judgments about defendant’s predictability, responsibility, intentionality and punishment. Results showed that downward counterfactuals had led people to judge the event less intentional, the defendant less responsible and, therefore, to give him a less severe punishment (vice versa for upward). The relationship between counterfactuals and intentionality judgments was partially mediated by the perceived defendant’s predictability of the negative outcomes. Finally, downward counterfactuals were linked to a greater focus on the context (external factors), whereas upward counterfactuals on the defendant/victim’s behaviours (internal factors). Findings were discussed considering both theoretical decision-making models and applications on the judicial field.     

不同心理一致感个体压力情境下的情绪特点研究

以46名大学生为被试,利用“九洞仪”创设实验室压力情境,考察不同心理一致感个体压力情境下的情绪反应及恢复特点。结果表明：（1）压力情境下,高、低心理一致感个体的情绪反应存在显著性差异。高心理一致感个体出现较多的积极情绪,低心理一致感个体则以消极情绪体验为主。（2）低心理一致感压力情境诱发出的消极情绪显著多于积极情绪,消极情绪的诱发量较大。（3）压力任务后,高心理一致感个体在情绪恢复量上显著多于低心理一致感个体,心理健康的自我康复力较大。（4）压力任务前后,低心理一致感个体的消极情绪诱发量显著高于恢复量,在消极情绪变化上表现出“诱发多,恢复少”的特点。     

连贯阅读中文本表征的意识性研究

采用独立记得-知道范式(IRK)和加工分离范式(PDP)探讨连贯阅读中文本表征的意识性问题。实验1使用独立记得-知道范式(IRK),分析被试对再认项目判断为“记得”或“知道”的比例（击中率）;实验2使用加工分离范式(PDP),分析被试在包含、排斥测验中的击中率和虚报率。总的实验结果表明,在连贯阅读中,命题表征的建构是无意识的,情境模型的建构也是无意识的,该结果支持和完善了文本阅读双加工理论。     

道德推脱与大学生学术欺骗行为的关系研究

通过对550名大学生的问卷调查,探讨道德推脱在移情、责任心、道德认同与学术欺骗行为之间的作用。结果表明:道德推脱对学术欺骗行为有显著的正向预测作用;责任心、道德认同对道德推脱有显著的负向预测作用;道德推脱在移情与学术欺骗行为之间无显著的中介作用,而在责任心与学术欺骗行为、道德认同与学术欺骗行为之间均有完全中介作用。文章最后探讨了这一中介作用的意义。     

A Neo-Kantian foundation of Corporate Social Responsibility

‘Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is conceptualized in many ways. We argue that one cannot be indifferent about the issue of its conceptualization. In terms of methodology, our position is that any conceptual discussion must embed CSR in political theory. With regard to substance, we link up with the discussion on whether CSR must be defined on the basis of a tripartite or a quadripartite division of business responsibilities. We share A.B. Carroll’s intuition that a quadripartite division is called for as a basis to define CSR. However, defending the quadripartite division of business responsibilities requires that the distinctions between economic, legal, ethical and discretionary business responsibilities be made intelligible. Carroll’s account is defective in this respect. We argue that contemporary Neo-Kantian political ethics is able to make sense of these distinctions, because of its specific interpretation of liberalism. Interestingly, from a conventional liberal perspective this interpretation of liberalism is atypical, as it extends public morality beyond the domain of the law.

1987～2008年我国安全感研究现状的文献计量学分析

对收录在中国期刊网上的274条安全感文章题录（1979～2008年）进行计量学分析,结果表明：1）安全感研究呈逐年增长的趋势;2）发表的期刊比较广泛,心理学类期刊、社会类期刊、医学类期刊及各院校的学报上都有涉及;3）研究主要考察整个社会群体,并且已经涉及到如学生、企业员工和患者等群体;4）研究领域主要集中在安全感的相关因素;5）合作研究已经成为安全感研究的研究趋势;6）研究论文总体上的项目资助力度还不够;7）普通高校特别是高等师范院校是进行科研的主要机构。     

THE BROTHERS BONHOEFFER ON SCIENCE, MORALITY, AND THEOLOGY

On one level this is a case study in science, religion, and morality, with special attention to the consequences for morality of science's embeddedness in society. On another level this is the science-and-theology dialogue between the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his brother Karl-Friedrich, a physicist. The influence of Karl-Friedrich and the brothers' exchanges on Dietrich's prison theology receives special attention. Because this study is set in Germany in the 1930s and 40s, and Karl-Friedrich's work intersected Germany's efforts to develop a nuclear weapon, the discussion leads to Los Alamos and the Manhattan Project. The attention there is to the interplay of science, religion, and morality at the time the bomb was detonated at the Trinity site.     

Piece of cake? Allocating rewards to third parties when fairness is costly

Reactions to third-party inequality were investigated in three experiments. In Experiment 1, 52 undergraduates allocated money between themselves and two others. Preferences for equal and unequal distributions were also rated. The results show that people are averse to inequalities between themselves and others, and to inequalities between others. Post-experimental ratings indicate that egocentric equality, third-party equality, and max–min preferences are important motives. The findings were replicated in Experiment 2, where 74 undergraduates allocated compensation for a previously conducted task, and in Experiment 3, where 112 participants rated preferences. In these experiments random determination of rewards to third parties altered participants’ behavior and preferences. The results indicated that random determination decreases the importance of all fairness motives while increasing the importance of monetary payoff. While people still care about economic equality under these conditions, contextual factors, such as perceived responsibility for unfair outcomes, seem to alter the impact of fairness.     

Technological Delegation: Responsibility for the Unintended

This article defends three interconnected premises that together demand for a new way of dealing with moral responsibility in developing and using technological artifacts. The first premise is that humans increasingly make use of dissociated technological delegation. Second, because technologies do not simply fulfill our actions, but rather mediate them, the initial aims alter and outcomes are often different from those intended. Third, since the outcomes are often unforeseen and unintended, we can no longer simply apply the traditional (modernist) models for discussing moral responsibility. We need to reinterpret moral responsibility. A schematic layout of a model on Social Role-Responsibility that incorporates these three premises is presented to allow discussion of a new way of interpreting moral responsibility.