走向正义的分配——罗尔斯分配正义思想解读

分配正义是建设中国特色社会主义的价值追求,也是构建和谐社会的客观要求。但现实中,由于分配问题导致的贫富差距已经越来越大,可以说解决分配问题已经到了刻不容缓的地步。而罗尔斯提出的分配正义思想不仅在20世纪制度伦理中有着无与伦比的影响,而且在当代主流意识形态中代表着“平等主义”,并且从正义角度的考虑系统地论证了他的平等分配观,其与一般的妒嫉式平等的不同。罗尔斯提出的差别原则,对于我国在市场经济建设中,政府充分发挥宏观调控职能,调节收入的二次分配,缩小贫富差距,有着巨大的理论指导意义。     

Justice and organizational punishment: Attitudinal outcomes of disciplinary events

This study utilized a justice framework to investigate punished subordinates' attitudinal reactions to specific disciplinary events. Results suggested that personality variables (negative affectivity and belief in a just world) influenced subordinate perceptions of the disciplinary event. In addition, belief in a just world had a direct effect on satisfaction with the supervisor, intention to leave, and organizational commitment. Contrary to expectations, harshness (a distributive aspect of the event) influenced perceptions of procedural justice and attitudes toward the institution (organizational commitment) and the leader (trust in supervisor), in addition to its influence on perceptions of distributive justice. The influence of procedural aspects of the event on attitudinal outcomes varied by dependent variable. The implications for future research and for management are discussed.     

Toward the Assessment of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Resolving Family Disputes

The first phase of this study focused on the development of comprehensive, conceptually integrated measures of procedural and distributive justice in the context of family decision making. In the second phase, these measures were used to examine older adolescents' justice appraisals of specific family disputes and the relation of these justice appraisals to family systems functioning along dimensions of conflict and cohesion. A Family Justice Inventory was constructed, which included two global indices (one for procedural justice and one for outcome fairness) and 13 subscales: 9 measuring specific facets of the procedural justice construct and 4 measuring specific dimensions of the distributive justice construct. Factor analysis revealed that the 13 Family Justice Inventory subscales could be reduced to 5 interpretable procedural justice factors (personal respect, status recognition, process control, correction, and trust) and 4 interpretable distributive justice factors (decision control, need, equality, and equity). Using procedural justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, correction, and trust each accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, both decision control and need accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using both procedural and distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, and trust each accounted for unique variance in both family conflict and family cohesion. Additionally, equity also accounted for unique variance in family conflict but not family cohesion and the direction of the relationship was positive, that is, more equity in resolving specific family disputes was associated higher levels of general family conflict.     

The effect of inputs and performance outcomes on allocation decisions

This study used a 2×2×5 factorial vignette study to examine allocations. The factors included gender, task (cooperative vs. competitive), and information (ability only, diligence only, performance only, ability and performance, diligence and performance). The study confirms previous findings that allocations in competitive situations are more equitable than in cooperative settings. Further, allocations in diligence conditions are more equitable than those in ability conditions. However, results reveal that allocations based on knowledge about performance outcomes are different from those based on attributional inputs. The role of inputs and performance in the allocation process is discussed.     

Procedural justice and ethical decision making

Procedural justice, in the form of voice and respectful treatment by supervisor, and ethical decision making are examined in this research. Ethical decision making is hypothesized to be a direct function of moral intent, as indicated by willingness to use moral criteria in decision making. Moral intent is, in turn, expected to be a function of the decision-making context, including perceptions of voice, respect and trust between supervisor and subordinate, and moral climate. Individual moral development is also expected to have a positive effect on moral intent. Results generally support the model, with two exceptions. First, perception of voice has a negative effect on moral intent, while caring climate and respectful supervisory relations have the expected positive effect on moral intent. These results suggest either a compensatory model of ethical decision making or a complacency effect. Second, individual characteristics had very little effect on either the decision made or the level of moral intent developed, save for one decision. These results suggest an important overlooked variable, the salience of issues for procedural justice concerns.     

Distributive justice: Theory and research

The concept of distributive justice and the theoretical and empirical work conducted on it during the past two decades are examined. Three questions provide the structure for this examination: (i) What are fundamental conceptual dimensions of distributive justice and the specific substantive issues to which they are related? (ii) What central questions has recent work on distributive justice addressed? and (iii) What are the most important emerging issues on which work in the near-term future should focus? Much of the theory and research examined in the paper is social psychological in nature, but reference is made to related work in related disciplines, particularly sociology and philosophy.     

The relationship of the outcome and procedural fairness: How does knowing the outcome influence judgments about the procedure?

Justice theories distinguish between fair procedures and fair or favorable outcomes. However, it is not clear whether people can clearly separate judgments about procedures from knowledge of the outcomes of those procedures. Two experiments are reported which address that question. In both studies respondents evaluate the fairness of decision-making procedures. In one case those evaluations occur prior to knowing the outcome of the procedure (behind the veil), while in the other the outcome is known before the procedural evaluation (in front of the veil). Two hypotheses about outcome influence are tested: that knowing the outcome changes themeaning of procedural fairness and that knowing the outcome changes theweight given to procedural fairness. Findings of both studies suggest that prior knowledge about the outcome does not change the way people define the meaning of the fairness of a procedure. However, people place less weight on their judments about procedural fairness when evaluating the decision maker if they make those judgments already knowing the outcome of the procedure.     

Equity,relative deprivation,and the value consensus paradox

This paper addresses the question of why respondents, when asked to specify an income they would be willing to accept as just, settle for an amount that, in most case, does not deviate strongly from what they actually receive. The phenomenon is illustrated by data from West Germany. It is argued that relative deprivation theory must be extended to incorporate processes of social hierarchy perception because inasmuch as this perception is contorted it creates illusory justice evaluations. Empirical evidence of misperceiving social distributions is given by social grading studies based on large German samples. The structural causes of the distributional misperceptions are discussed, one of these causes being the value consensus paradox, i.e., the paradox that, in a stratified society, value consensus will produce different social perceptions.     

论惩罚性赔偿的性质

惩罚性赔偿是一种超额赔偿.惩罚性赔偿是否具有惩罚性,理论界存在争议.惩罚性赔偿的定性影响到法律程序的选择和惩罚性赔偿的适用.基于保护受害人人格尊严而进行的赔偿(或者称为精神赔偿)和促使行为人将行为成本全部内化的威慑性赔偿,在性质上仍然归于民事处罚的范畴.对于基于报应正义而进行的惩罚性赔偿才是真正的惩罚性赔偿.刑法适用范围很小,只有当行为人给社会造成严重的危害,且其有非常大的道德可责性时,才能用刑罚威慑.在传统二元结构框架下,有大量的违法行为逃避法律的制裁,三元结构中的惩罚性民事责任可以弥补这种缺陷,强化法律的社会控制力.然而,惩罚性民事责任的扩张,会严重地威胁到个人的权利.因此惩罚性民事责任应当受到严格的监督和控制.     

Distributive Justice and the Politics of Difference

Abstract

This essay identifies a point of convergence between economically oriented, distributive approaches to social justice and culturally oriented, identitarian ones. The primary problem of difference politics, I claim, is insuring that disadvantaged groups have equal abilities to participate in the social processes that construct and value identities. I argue that this is best accomplished through a conception of equality promoting human agency in both the cultural and economic spheres.