Åsbjørn Melkevik
Postes occupés
| 2019-2020 à 2021-2022 | Chercheur-se postdoctoral-e, Éthique et économie |
| 2019-2020 à 2021-2022 | Chercheur-se postdoctoral-e, Éthique et politique |
| 2020-2021 à 2021-2022 | Représentant-e des chercheur-ses postdoctoraux-les |
Participations aux événements du CRÉ
| 31 octobre 2019 | « If You’re a Classical Liberal, How Come You’re Also an Egalitarian?: A Theory of Rule Egalitarianism » |
|---|---|
| 27 avril 2020 | Rencontre du Parr Center, de la Chaire Hoover et du CRÉ |
| 21 janvier 2021 | « A Marginal Theory of Ethics » |
| 13 janvier 2022 | « The Province of Efficiency Redefined » |
| 8 juin 2023 | 7th Social Justice Theory Workshop |
Biographie
Åsbjørn Melkevik has been the Edmond J. Safra Harvard Exchange Post-Doctoral Fellow at Tel Aviv University, following his Fellowship-in-Residence at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. He received his Ph.D. in political studies from Queen’s University in 2017. His postdoctoral research project at CRÉ is financed by the prestigious Banting fellowship and is co-supervised by Peter Dietsch (UdeM) and Pablo Gilabert (Concordia).
Åsbjørn specializes in political theory, business ethics, and economic ethics. He has published his research in journals such as Business Ethics Quarterly, the Journal of Business Ethics, Constitutional Political Economy, the European Journal of Political Theory, Ethics and Economics, the Erasmus Journal of Philosophy and Economics, the European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, and Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.
Åsbjørn has argued that classical liberalism has wrongly been regarded as an ideology that rejects the welfare state. If a necessary link exists between the classical liberal tradition and the moral and institutional dimensions of the rule of law, then this tradition is bound to uphold a substantial form of social justice. In business ethics, Åsbjørn has championed a theory of “eunomics”, following the work of Lon Fuller. This theory explains why each kind of legal process, including managerial direction, is better suited for the pursuit of a limited number of ends, and therefore why we should not force a single institution to solve all ethical problems we face.
