نمونه متن انگلیسی مقاله
The research examined with in depth clinical interviews (N = 48), how adolescents aged 13–۱۷, and young adults aged 18–۲۵ reasoned about human rights. Participants were presented with general questions about human rights and four contextualized situations in which violations of human rights occur. Results showed that adolescents and young adults judged and reasoned similarly about human rights in response to general questions, but there was more variation in judgments and justifications about specific situations involving violations of human rights. Within specific contexts individuals consider different aspects of situations and balance or coordinate them in coming to decisions. However, all ages approached the general issue of human rights, and their violations, primarily from a moral perspective and to a lesser extent from the perspectives of societal organization and cultural practices. Less agreement, and less moral reasoning, was found in reference to punishment of human rights violations.
The concept of rights has been important to philosophical, political science, and psychological analyses of morality (Dworkin, 1977; Gewirth, 1982; Helwig, 1995; Kohlberg, 1971; McClosky & Brill, 1983; Mill, 1859; Nussbaum, 2000; Turiel, Killen, & Helwig, 1987; Turiel, 2002). Extensive philosophical discussions have provided definitions of the concept of rights and considered their appropriate application across situational and societal contexts, focusing, for the most part, on civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. In a particularly influential analysis, Dworkin (1977) drew a distinction between abstract and concrete rights, addressing the question of whether rights should be applied in universal and absolute ways in different contexts. For Dworkin, the abstract concept of a right involving civil liberty is necessary to a moral system, and governments are obligated to respect such rights (see Dworkin, 1977, Chapter 7). However, the application of rights may not be universal in the sense that it can be in conflict with other moral and social considerations in some situations. A classic example is whether or not speech should be free when a public speaker advocates violence towards a racial or religious group.