2023Unpublished venueRequires access

Varieties of Organizational Blameworthiness

Stéphanie Collins

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Abstract This chapter defends organizations’ blameworthiness through three different lenses: the volitionist lens, the attributivist lens, and the aretaic lens. Each lens focuses on a different aspect of a wrongful entity. The volitionist lens focuses on the will, choices, or intentions of the entity. The attributivist lens focuses on the entity’s evaluative attitudes, over which the entity might never have made a choice. The aretaic lens focuses not on what an entity chooses or values, but on what an entity is—specifically, on an entity’s character flaws or vices. The volitionist lens has been dominant in the literature on group blameworthiness; therefore, the contribution of this chapter is to demonstrate that the attributivist and aretaic lenses are just as applicable to organizations. The chapter works through each of these lenses in turn, arguing that each lens can be used to render organizations blameworthy.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract This chapter defends organizations’ blameworthiness through three different lenses: the volitionist lens, the attributivist lens, and the aretaic lens. Each lens focuses on a different aspect of a wrongful entity. The volitionist lens focuses on the will, choices, or intentions of the entity. The attributivist lens focuses on the entity’s evaluative attitudes, over which the entity might never have made a choice. The aretaic lens focuses not on what an entity chooses or values, but on what an entity is—specifically, on an entity’s character flaws or vices. The volitionist lens has been dominant in the literature on group blameworthiness; therefore, the contribution of this chapter is to demonstrate that the attributivist and aretaic lenses are just as applicable to organizations. The chapter works through each of these lenses in turn, arguing that each lens can be used to render organizations blameworthy.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract This chapter defends organizations’ blameworthiness through three different lenses: the volitionist lens, the attributivist lens, and the aretaic lens. Each lens focuses on a different aspect of a wrongful entity. The volitionist lens focuses on the will, choices, or intentions of the entity. The attributivist lens focuses on the entity’s evaluative attitudes, over which the entity might never have made a choice. The aretaic lens focuses not on what an entity chooses or values, but on what an entity is—specifically, on an entity’s character flaws or vices. The volitionist lens has been dominant in the literature on group blameworthiness; therefore, the contribution of this chapter is to demonstrate that the attributivist and aretaic lenses are just as applicable to organizations. The chapter works through each of these lenses in turn, arguing that each lens can be used to render organizations blameworthy.

Key concepts: Lens (geology), Through-the-lens metering, Character (mathematics), Epistemology, Engineering, Philosophy, Mathematics, Petroleum engineering

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Varieties of Organizational Blameworthiness — Research Paper | ScholarLens