cats.jpg

昨天2月22日,剛開學的第一天,

特地邀請中央研究院 人社中心 陳宜中副研究員來系上針對碩士生和博士生演講。

演講主題是:Social Justice & Positive Discrimination

什麼是Social Justice?翻譯為社會正義

什麼是positive discrimination ?翻譯為積極性差別待遇或積極性優惠

the practice or policy of making sure that a particular number of jobs, etc. are given to people from groups that are often treated unfairly because of their race, sex, etc. 積極區別對待政策(對因種族、性別等原因遭歧視的群體在就業等方面給予特別照顧)

但真正的Social Justice & Positive Discrimination的內涵到底為何?

宜中老師簡單的提起Social Justice History

何時人們開始談論社會正義?

哪些人在談論社會正義?

這些人怎麼談社會正義?

社會正義又是怎麼來的?

正義與慈善之間的關係為何?

助人是因為正義,還是因為慈善?

不正義與不幸之間的關係為何?

什麼是平等?齊頭平等與差別平等為何?其中的公平又為何?

陳宜中老師在昨天的演講上,都有稍稍介紹,

像是開了扇窗,邀請我們走進社會正義的門內思考。

以下是演講錄音檔,很抱歉的是僅錄一個多小時而已,

所以對於演講有任何疑問,可以在提出討論。  

   

以下是演講講綱:

Social Justice & Positive Discrimination

陳宜中

中央研究院人社中心

 

The Structure

npreliminary notes on justice and injustice

nsocial justice

npositive discrimination (or affirmative action)

 

Preliminary Notes (I):
Justice and Charity

 

nDo the poor have a moral right to assistance? If the poor do have such a right, then the duty of the rich is one of justice, but if there is no such right, it is a duty of charity. Duties of justice are generally taken to be enforceable by the state, whereas duties of charity are private and a matter of individual choice. The distinction also reflects a difference of the understanding of the status of the recipient: insisting that other people observe their duties of justice seems very different to asking them for charity, which can often seem demeaning.

 

(From Jonathan Wolff, “Social Justice”)

Preliminary Notes (II):
Misfortune and Injustice

nExamples: the Lisbon earthquake of 1755; the fate of women; famines; disabilities…

nJudith N. Shklar: “Some misfortunes of the past, however, are now injustices, such as infant mortality and famines, which are caused mainly by public corruption and indifferences… we must recognize that the line of separation between injustice and misfortune is a political choice, not a simple rule that can be taken as a given. The question is, thus, not whether to draw a line between them at all, but where to do so in order both to enhance responsibility and to avoid random retaliation.”

 

(from Judith N. Shklar, The Faces of Injustice)

Preliminary Notes (III):
Justice, Injustice, and modernity

nthe rise of the modern state

nthe development of technology

nthe “social question”

ndemocratic egalitarianism

nchance and choice

npostmodernism and multiculturalism

 

Social Justice (I): History

nAristotle on justice: rectificatory justice; distributive justice; commutative justice

nthe right to subsistence (生存權) and the early modern ideas of “strict justice”

na distinction between justice and charity; the denial of distributive justice

 

Social Justice (I): History

nthe “social question” since the 19th century

nthe poor law: set up in the early seventeenth century in England and Wales to provide assistance to the sick, the old, and those in poverty. Initially, a duty fell on each parish to provide support for those in need. In the eighteenth century, workhouses were established and parishes were entitled to decline support if the poor refused to enter the workhouse. The motivations for the Poor Law were complex, including an element of religious or charitable duty to support the needy and an element of self-protection…

nAdam Smith and Thomas Paine

nJohn Stuart Mill on “social and distributive justice”

 

Social Justice (II):
Nozick and Hayek

nNozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974)

This text is the leading philosophical statement of a libertarian approach to social justice, in which Nozick argues for the ‘entitlement theory’ of justice, comprised of three principles. A principle of justice in initial acquisition explains the circumstances under which property can be appropriated from nature. A principle of justice in transfer explains how property can justly be transferred from one person to another. A principle of justice in rectification deals with violations of the first two principles. According to Nozick, as long as a distribution of property comes about in accordance with these principles, it will be just, whatever ‘pattern’ of holdings results.

Social Justice (II):

Nozick and Hayek

nFriedrich von Hayek (1899–1992)

        An Austrian Nobel Prize-winning economist and political thinker, Hayek spent most of his professional life at the London School of Economics and the University of Chicago. He did much to argue for the indispensability of the economic market in the face of limited knowledge and hence against the possibility of rational central economic planning. His major works, which have had a great influence on the development of neo-conservative thought, include The Road to Serfdom (1944), The Constitution of Liberty (1944), and Law, Legislation and Liberty (three volumes, 1973), the second volume of which is subtitled The Mirage of Social Justice.

 

Social Justice (III):
Basic Social Rights

nsocial rights and social justice

na decent social minimum; satisfying basic socio-economic needs

nsocial rights as “positive rights”

nsocial rights and the “welfare state”

 

Social Justice (IV):
John Rawls

nRawls, A Theory of Justice (1971)

 

        An influential text in which the themes of classical ‘social contract’ thinking—especially that of Immanuel Kant—are revived in justification of liberal egalitarian principles of justice guaranteeing equal liberties to all, equal opportunity for all, and a distribution of economic goods that makes the worst off as well off as possible. Rawls argues that these principles would be the rational choice of people placed behind a veil of ignorance, denying to them knowledge of characteristics—for example, sex, race, and class—that can be (dis)advantaging in the real world, but which ought not to be (dis)advantaging in the just society.

 

Social Justice (IV):
John Rawls

nthe first principle: equal liberty

nthe second principle: fair equality of opportunity; the difference principle

npractical implications of Rawls’s two principles of justice

 

Social Justice (V):
Equality of Opportunity

n“career open to talent”; “meritocracy”

n“desert” and “merit”

nchance and choice

 

Positive Discrimination (I):
Nagel on Equal Opportunity

nCategory 1. Formal Equality of Opportunity : “careers open to talents,” requiring inter alia the elimination of legal barriers to persons of color, women, and so forth as well as the punishment of private discrimination against them.

 

nCategory 2. Aggressive Formal Equality of Opportunity : self-conscious impartiality achieved through sensitivity training, external monitoring and enforcement (e.g., by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), outreach efforts, and so forth as a possible supplement to category 1.

 

nCategory 3. Compensating Support : “special training programs, or financial backing, or day-care centers, or apprenticeships, or tutoring,” all designed to compensate for color- or gender-based disadvantages in preparation, social support, and so forth and by doing so to help recipients compete more effectively for university admission or employment.

 

Positive Discrimination (I):
Nagel on Equal Opportunity

nCategory 4. Soft Quotas: “compensatory discrimination in the selection process,” such as adding “bonus points” to the selection indices of persons of color or women in the college-admissions or hiring processes, but without the use of explicit quotas.

 

nCategory 5. Hard Quotas: “admission [or hiring] quotas,” perhaps “proportional to the  representation of a given [historically oppressed] group in the population.”

 

 

Positive Discrimination (II):
Reasons for Positive Discrimination

ngroup-based historical injustices

ncompensational justice

nfair equality of opportunity

nRonald Dworkin on black doctors

nDavid Miller on forward-looking “desert”

 

Positive Discrimination (III):
Reasons against Positive Discrimination

nMatt Cavanagh, Against Equality of Opportunity, 2002

n“meritocracy”; “career open to talent”

nmarket competition; class politics and the middle-class “enclosure” movement

ncontinuing controversies over group-based strategies of equalization

 

Positive Discrimination (IV):
Some Concluding Notes

npositive discrimination (or affirmative action) is one, but not the only, strategy for rectifying group-based injustices.

na more balanced approach addressing distribution, recognition and difference remains to be developed.  

 

Positive Discrimination (IV):
Some Concluding Notes

nShklar: When we can alleviate suffering, whatever its cause, it is passively unjust to stand by and do nothing. It is not the origins of injury, but the possibility of preventing and reducing its costs, that allows us to judge whether there was or was not unjustifiable passivity… Nor is the sense of injustice irrelevant. The voices of the victims must always be heard first… to attend to their interpretations of the situation… If the victim’s suffering is due to accident or misfortune but could be remedied by public agents, then it is unjust if nothing is done to help.

 

The End

 

Thank you very much for listening

 

延伸閱讀:

Judith N. Shklar, The Faces of Injustice, Yale University Press, 1990.

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, 1971.

David Miller, Principles of Social Justice, Harvard University Press, 1999.

陳宜中,2003,〈國家應維護社會權嗎?評當代反社會權論者的幾項看法〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》第15卷第2期(2003年6月),頁309-338。

陳宜中,2004,〈社會正義vs.市場正義:論自由主義思想裡的兩種正義觀點〉,收於張世雄編《社會正義與全球化:福利與自由主義的反思》(2004年9月),頁67-99。台北:桂冠。

 

下次愛思想論壇預告:

論壇主題:變遷社會中的需要、風險和生命歷程

Needs, Risks and the Life Course in a changing world

論壇講師:國立中正大學社會福利學系張世雄教授

論壇時間:99年3月8日 13:30-15:20

論壇地點:SS305

參加論壇前請閱讀:

張世雄

1996 《社會福利的理念與社會安全制度》。(二刷,1999)台北:唐山出版社。第一章到第三章(PDF)。http://www.rchss.sinica.edu.tw/publication/ebook/journal/08-02-1996/08_2_9.pdf

2009 《社會福利概論》(空中大學):第一章第一節。

因為教室座位有限,請先上網報名。

報名網址:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dEwzS2o2QXRlOE43alA4N01aV3ZPUUE6MA

 

 

 

創作者介紹

庫‧愛‧社‧工

thusw 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(1) 人氣()


留言列表 (1)

發表留言
  • pei
  • 昨天,我很喜歡老師提到Adam Smith(亞當斯密) 的最低生活標準。
    這讓我想起自己在工作中,經常在思考我可以給予案主到哪種程度的幫助,
    而最基本、起碼的生活標準,則是我的工作中經常運用的價值,
    而原來這也是社會正義的一種思想,
    當我知道這是從哪來的價值思想時,我還真是開心^^
    有時候,我們對於社會正義是什麼,好像懂,但又說不出所以然來,
    一旦有人攻擊你做事不公平,
    經常又要反思尋找何謂公平正義?
    所以很多助人價值,源自於一些簡單的本質基礎,
    搞懂這些助人本質基礎時,做起事情來,也比較踏實和認同。
    昨天宜中老師最後說,
    有時候正義需要偷渡,
    他舉了一個例子是美國中產階級的家長,
    如果她們的小孩被排擠進名校資格,
    讓她們感覺到學校有不正義、不公平的壓迫感時,
    這些家長則會去攻擊學校,
    所以在美國學校為保障種族、性別,而給予這些特別種族或性別加分,
    是會引起爭議的,
    但為要保障特殊族群的就學機會,仍偷渡正義,採多元化說法,
    讓特殊族群也能擁有就學權利,
    同時也避免掉一些其他爭議。
    這例子,讓我體會到正義一詞的運用,需要非常小心,
    不幸與不正義之間的區隔,也僅在一線之間,
    如何劃分,也沒有一定的標準。
    另外,我還學習到一個我從未想過關於社會正義的觀點是:
    社會正義只是矯治不正義的手段之ㄧ
    非解決問題的唯一方法,
    需要有配套措施。
    這讓我再次省思專業助人者在使用正義公平的助人過程中,
    不過度放大專業,也小心思索使用助人技巧。
找更多相關文章與討論