Book chapter
Обыденное знание о дистрибутивной справедливости: методическое исследование сравнимости внутрисубъектных и межсубъектных экспериментальных планов и некоторые содержательные результаты
С. 22-43.
We use cookies in order to improve the quality and usability of the HSE website. More information about the use of cookies is available here, and the regulations on processing personal data can be found here. By continuing to use the site, you hereby confirm that you have been informed of the use of cookies by the HSE website and agree with our rules for processing personal data. You may disable cookies in your browser settings.
✖13 December 2018
13 December 2018
12 December 2018
The article discusses the features of the Aristotelian tradition of studies in human behavior and the concept of justice that was focal to this tradition. An appeal to the Aristotelian tradition allows to revise critically the incontestability and productivity of relegating the role of ethics to the sphere of normative judgments that characterizes the approach of modern economics
Organizational justice is one of the key factors ensuring performance of an organization. An organizational justice evaluation influences on organizational attitudes, emotions and behaviors. It is based on social norms pertaining to both the process and the results of communication. Which norms are employees guided? Why do they comply with ones? How can we increase the organizational justice evaluation? In the article these questions are discussed.
The chapter raises the question of the specificity of causality and blame judgments in situations of unintended negative side effects of intentional actions. We focus on the naïve “theory of social action”, according to which there are limitations on the actor’s responsibility for intelligibly expected probable unintended damage of his actions. We propose that causality and blame judgments depend on (1) particular institutional domain of the action, (2) type of actor (individual, corporate or institutional actor), (3) type of inadvertent damage (property damage or health damage) and (4) “remoteness” of damage from its originator (immediate damage to an agent performing an action in a new situation created by the originator’s action either damage to a third party).