Moral atrophy in the welfare state

The welfare state is often accused of being counterproductive: as the scope of public responsibility expands, private morality (especially altruism and benevolence) atrophies. This essay surveys psychological findings for evidence, which turns out to be broadly consistent with either of two models of moral development, each bearing distinct policy implications. The model of morally keeping in practice that is implicit in the term moral atrophy suggests the need for frequent opportunities to exercise moral skills, which would seem inconsistent with the welfare state. Alternatively, the model of moral character-building favoured by both philosophers and ordinary discourse would require only occasional reminders of one's moral principles. On this model, benevolence could usefully supplement the welfare state.     

Seeing Canada Through the Referendum: Still a House Divided

On 26 October 1992, a majority of Canadians in a majority ofprovinces rejected the Charlottetown Accord in a national referendum.The accord capped the "Canada round" of constitutional negotiationsand attempted to satisfy Quebec, while also addressing otherpan-Canadian issues. The accord was defeated for different reasonsin different parts of the country. In Quebec, the "No" sideargued that the agreement did not meet their demands for greaterjurisdictionalautonomy within the federation. In the rest of Canada, the "No"side was particularly successful in demonstrating that the agreementdeviated from the principle of equality in the treatment ofindividuals and provinces. These critiques, inspired by differentvisions of the federation, lead in different directions. Inlight of these divisions, many commentators have suggested thatintergovernmental elites ought to abandon efforts of wholesaleconstitutional change. However, political developments in Quebecmay force these questions back onto the agenda.     

The courts,interest groups,and public opinion about abortion

Public preferences about the availability of abortion under various circumstances have remained fairly stable over time. Yet a standard CBS/New York Times abortion question indicates that a significant shift in opinion occurred during the 1980s, whereby the public became increasingly supportive of legalized abortion as it is now. These very different patterns of public opinion about abortion suggest that the public perceived a shift in the abortion status quo, toward more restricted access, over time, and became more supportive of current abortion policy.A model of support for legalized abortion as it is now is developed that incorporates the influences of court activities and interest-group behavior. The analysis indicates that the public reacted directly to the activities of the courts, becoming more supportive of current abortion policy in response to media coverage of court cases that challenged the abortion status quo and Supreme Court nominations and confirmations. Although absolute preferences remained largely unchanged, it appears the public perceived an increasing threat to the status quo and became correspondingly less enamored with further restrictions on the availability of abortion.     

Teaching Negotiation Theory and Skills Over the Internet

Negotiating on-line is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon in the workplace. The medium of the Internet also offers promising, opportunities for negotiation educators to reach out to participants that might otherwise be unable to attend a seminar. The authors used the Internet to teach negotiation theory and skills during a seven-week seminar that was conducted completely over the World Wide Web. This experiment revealed several advantages and difficulties likely to arise in the conduct of distance learning for topics in negotiation. The authors reflect on how they would organize the seminar differently, should they do it again, and offer suggestions for others organizing courses using the Internet.     

Genetic discrimination: Huntington's disease and the Americans with Disabilities Act

This Note discusses the potential for genetic discrimination, current views as to whether genetic conditions will be covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the specific issue of whether presymptomatic persons who test positive for Huntington's disease should be classified as persons with a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA. In considering whether presymptomatic Huntington's individuals have a disability under the ADA, an analogy is made between Huntington's disease and HIV-positive status. Inter alia, Huntington's disease and HIV-positive status are analogous in that, at the time of diagnosis, victims of both diseases may have no symptoms and may remain healthy for a number of years; but even though the exact time of onset of both diseases is unascertainable, death of both victims within a given range of years is highly likely. Further, both Huntington's disease and HIV are transmitted to offspring at a relatively high rate. Given these similarities, the author argues that Huntington's individuals should be afforded the protections of the ADA for the same reasons that HIV-positive persons are protected.