Ethics of Justification : A Defence of Contractualism

In What We Owe to Each Other, T.M. Scanlon formulated a new version of the ethical theory called contractualism. This theory took reasons considerations that count in favour of judgment-sensitive attitudes to be the fundamental normative notion. It then used normative reasons to first account for evaluative properties. For an object to be valuable, on this view, is for it to have properties that provide reasons to have favourable attitudes towards the bearer of value. Scanlon also used reasons to account for moral wrongness. His contractualism claims that an act is morally wrong if it is forbidden by any set of moral principles that no one could reasonably reject. My thesis consists of five previously published articles which attempt to clarify Scanlon s theory and to defend it against its critics. The first article defends the idea that normative reason-relations are fundamental against Joshua Gert. Gert argues that rationality is a more basic notion than reasons and that reasons can be analysed in terms of their rationally requiring and justifying dimensions. The second article explores the relationship between value and reasons. It defends Scanlon s view according to which reasons are the more basic than value against those who think that reasons are based on the evaluative realm. The last three articles defend Scanlon s views about moral wrongness. The first one of them discusses a classic objection to contractualist theories. This objection is that principles which no one could reasonably reject are redundant in accounting for wrongness. This is because we need a prior notion of wrongness to select those principles and because such principles are not required to make actions wrong or to provide reasons against wrong actions. The fourth article explores the distinctive reasons which contractualists claim there are for avoiding the wrong actions. The last article argues against the critics of contractualism who claim that contractualism has implausible normative consequences for situations related to the treatment of different-sized groups of people.

Despairing Justice and the Ethics of Legal Interpretation

This study discusses legal interpretation. The question is how legal texts, for instance laws, statutes and regulations, can and do have meaning. Language makes interpretation difficult as it holds no definite meanings. When the theoretical connection between semantics and legal meaning is loosened and we realise that language cannot be a means of justifying legal decisions, the responsibility inherent in legal interpretation can be seen in full. We are thus compelled to search for ways to analyse this responsibility. The main argument of the book is that the responsibility of legal interpretation contains a responsibility towards the text that is interpreted (and through the mediation of the text also towards the legal system), but not only this. It is not simply a responsibility to read and read well, but it transcends on a broader scale. It includes responsibility for the effects of the interpretation in a particular situation and with regard to the people whose case is decided. Ultimately, it is a responsibility to do justice. These two aspects of responsibility are conceptualised here as the two dimensions of the ethics of legal interpretation: the textual and the situational. The basic conception of language presented here is provided by Ludwig Wittgenstein s later philosophy, but the argument is not committed to only one philosophical tradition. Wittgenstein can be counterpointed in interesting ways by Jacques Derrida s ideas on language and meaning. Derrida s work also functions as a contrast to hermeneutic theories. It is argued that the seed to an answer to the question of meaning lies in the inter-personal and situated activity of interpretation and communication, an idea that can be discerned in different ways in the works of Wittgenstein, Derrida and Hans-Georg Gadamer. This way the question of meaning naturally leads us to think about ethics, which is approached here through the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. His thinking, focusing on topics such as otherness, friendship and hospitality, provides possibilities for answering some of the questions posed in this book. However, at the same time we move inside a normativity where ethics and politics come together in many ways. The responsibility of legal interpretation is connected to the political and this has to be acknowledged lest we forget that law always implies force. But it is argued here that the political can be explored in positive terms as it does not have to mean only power or violence.

Independent and mediating organizational commitment effects of trust in leadership on employees' job satisfaction and : a study within social and health care sector

The purpose of this study was to examine whether trust in supervisor and trust in senior management enhance employees' job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and whether trust mediates the relationship between perceived justice and these outcomes. Trust in supervisor was expected to mediate the effects of distributive justice and interactional justice, and trust in senior management was expected to mediate the effects of procedural justice. Theoretical background of the study is based on the framework for trust in leadership developed by Dirks and Ferrin (2002). According to the framework, perceived fairness of leaders' actions helps employees to draw inferences about the basis of the relationship and about leaders' characters. This allows trust formation. Reciprocation of care and concern in the relationship and confidence in leaders' characters are likely to enhance employees' job satisfaction and organizational commitment. This study was conducted with cross-sectional data (A/ = 960) of employees from social and health care sector. Hypotheses were studied using correlation analysis and several hierarchical regression analyses. Significances of the mediations were assessed using the Sobel test. Results partially supported the hypotheses. Trust in leadership was positively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Trust in senior management mediated the relationship between procedural justice and the outcomes. Some support was also found for the mediating effect of trust in supervisor in the relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment. Due to high correlation between trust in supervisor anil interactional justice, it wasn't possible to study the mediating e fleet of trust in supervisor in the relationship between interactional justice and the outcomes. Against expectations, results indicated that trust in senior management had a mediating effect in the relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment, and in the relationship between interactional justice and organizational commitment. Results also indicated that trust in supervisor had a mediating effect in the relationship between procedural justice and organizational commitment.