Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics is an open access philosophical journal, being published only in an electronic format.
The journal aims at promoting research and reflection, both historically and theoretically, in the field of moral and political philosophy, with no cultural preclusion or adhesion to any cultural current.
Contributions should be submitted in one of these languages: Italian, English, French, German, Portuguese, Spanish.
All essays should include an English abstract of max. 200 words.
The editorial staff especially welcomes interdisciplinary contributions with special attention to the main trends of the world of practice.
The journal has an anonymous double peer review referee system.
Three issues per year are expected.
The copyright of the published articles remain to the authors. We ask that in any future use of them Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics be quoted as a source.
All products on this site are released with a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5 IT) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/it/
ETICA & POLITICA / ETHICS & POLITICS POSITION ON PUBLISHING ETHICS
The Editors of Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics have taken every possible measure to ensure the quality of the material here published and, in particular, they guarantee that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely, and that all papers have been reviewed by unprejudiced and qualified reviewers. The publication of an article through a peer-review process is intended as an essential feature of any serious scientific community. The decision to accept or reject a paper for publication is based on the paper’s relevance, originality and clarity, the study’s validity and its relevance to the mission of the journal. In order to guarantee the quality of the published papers, the Editors encourage reviewers to provide detailed comments to motivate their decisions. The comments will help the Editorial Board to decide the outcome of the paper, and will help to justify this decision to the author. If the paper is accepted with the request of revision, the comments should guide the author in making the revisions for the final manuscript. All material submitted to the journal remains confidential while under review.
Once the author receives a positive answer, he/she should send the final version of the article since proofs will not be sent to him/her. E&P will publish the paper within twelve months from the moment of the acceptance, and the author will be informed of the publication.
The journal is committed to such standards as originality in research papers, precise references in discussing other scholars’ positions, avoiding plagiarism. E&P takes these standards extremely seriously, because we think that they embody scientific method and are the mark of real scholarly communication.
Since Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics is devoted solely to scientific and academic quality, the journal neither has any submission charges nor any article processing charges.
The following guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors
1. PUBLICATION AND AUTHORSHIP
EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, is the publisher of the peer reviewed international journal Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics.
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential step of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher.
Authors need to ensure that the submitted article is the work of the submitting author(s) and is not plagiarized, wholly or in part. They must also make sure that the submitted article is original, is not wholly or in part a re-publication of the author’s earlier work, and contains no fraudulent data.
It is also their responsibility to check that all copyrighted material within the article has permission for publication and that material for which the author does not personally hold copyright is not reproduced without permission.
Finally, authors should ensure that the manuscript submitted is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
2. AUTHOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES
Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics is a peer-reviewed journal, and Authors are obliged to participate in our double blind peer review process.
Authors must make sure that all and only the contributors to the article are listed as authors. Authors should also ensure that all authors provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
3. PEER REVIEW AND REVIEWERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES
Both the Referee and the Author remain anonymous throughout the “double blind” review process. Referees are selected according to their expertise in their particular fields.
Referees have a responsibility to be objective in their judgments; to have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, with respect to the authors and/or with respect to the research funders; to point out relevant published work which is not yet cited by the author(s); and to treat the reviewed articles confidentially.
4. EDITORIAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Editors hold full authority to reject/accept an article; to accept a paper only when reasonably certain; to promote publication of corrections or retractions when errors are found; to preserve anonymity of reviewers; and to have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject/accept. If an Editor feels that there is likely to be a perception of a conflict of interest in relation to their handling of a submission, they will declare it to the other Editors. The other Editors will select referees and make all decisions on the paper.
5. PUBLISHING ETHICS ISSUES
Members of the Editorial Board ensure the monitoring and safeguarding of the publishing ethics. This comprises the strict policy on plagiarism and fraudulent data, the strong commitment to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed, and the strict preclusion of business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards.
Whenever it is recognized that a published paper contains a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report, it will be corrected promptly. If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it will be retracted. The retraction will be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.
PAST ISSUE AND STATISTICS
Past issues with download and visitors statistics for each article are provided here: http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/handle/10077/4673
COMITATO SCIENTIFICO NAZIONALE / ITALIAN ADVISORY BOARD:
A. Agnelli † (Trieste), A. Allegra (Perugia), G. Alliney (Macerata), S. Amato (Catania), M. Anzalone (Napoli), D. Ardilli (Modena), F. Aronadio (Roma), G. Azzoni (Pavia), F. Bacchini (Sassari), E. Berti (Padova), M. Bettetini (Milano), P. Bettineschi (Venezia), P. Biasetti (Padova), G. Bistagnino (Milano) R. Caporali (Bologna), A.A. Cassi (Bergamo), G. Catapano (Padova), M. Cossutta (Trieste), L. Cova (Trieste), S. Cremaschi (Vercelli), G. Cevolani (Modena), R. Cristin (Trieste), U. Curi (Padova), G. De Anna (Udine), P. Donatelli (Roma), P. Donini (Milano), M. Faraguna (Milano), M. Ferraris (Torino), L. Floridi (Oxford), R. Frega (Bologna), S. Fuselli (Verona), A. Fussi (Pisa), C. Galli (Bologna), R. Giovagnoli (Roma), P. Kobau (Torino), E. Irrera (Bologna), E. Lecaldano (Roma), L.A. Macor (Oxford), E. Manganaro (Trieste), G. Maniaci (Palermo), R. Martinelli (Trieste), F.G. Menga (Tübingen), R. Mordacci (Milano), V. Morfino (Milano), B. de Mori (Padova), M. Pagano (Vercelli), G. Pellegrino (Roma), V. Rasini (Modena-Reggio Emilia), M. Reichlin (Milano), M. Renzo (Stirling), A. Rigobello (Roma), P.A. Rovatti (Trieste), S. Semplici (Roma), A. Schiavello (Palermo), A. Sciumè (Bergamo), M. Sgarbi (Venezia), F. Toto (Roma), F. Trabattoni (Milano), F. Trifirò (London), M.S. Vaccarezza (Genova), C. Vigna (Venezia), P. Vignola (Guayaquil) S. Zeppi † (Trieste).
COMITATO SCIENTIFICO INTERNAZIONALE / INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD:
J. Allan (New Zealand), K. Ballestrem (Germany), T. Bedorf (Germany), G. Betz (Germany), W. Block (USA), M. Byron (USA), S. Chambers (Canada), J. Coleman (UK), C. Cowley (Ireland), W. Edelglass (USA), C.L. Geshekter (USA), A. Kalyvas (USA), J. Kelemen (Hungary), F. Klampfer (Slovenia), M. Knoll (Turkey), C. Illies (Germany), D. Innerarity (Spain), A. Lever (Switzerland), H. Lindahl (Netherlands), J. Marti (Spain), M. Matulovic (Croatia), J. McCormick (USA), N. Miscevic (Croatia), A. Moles (Hungary), L. Paulson (France), A. Przylesbski (Poland), J. Quong (USA) V. Rakic (Serbia), A. Schaap (UK), B. Schultz (USA), N. Tarcov (USA), D. Webb (UK), J.P. Zamora Bonilla (Spain).
REFEREES LIST FOR 2017
B. Accarino (Università di Firenze), A. Altobrando (China University of Politics and Law, Pechino) A. Allegra (Università per Stranieri, Perugia), S. Amato (Università di Catania), P. Bettineschi (Università di Padova), S. Blancu (LUMSA, Roma), M. Ballistreri (Università di Torino), M. Bettetini (IULM, Milano), C. Canullo (Università di Macerata), R. Caporali (Università di Bologna), G. Cevolani (IMT, Lucca), F. Ciaramelli (Università di Napoli, Federico II), A. Cislaghi (Università di Trieste), R. Cristin (Università di Trieste), G. De Anna (Università di Udine), P. Donatelli (Università di Roma, La Sapienza), A. Fabris (Università di Pisa), S. Ferrando (Université de Strasbourg), A. Fussi (Università di Pisa), C. Gerbaz (Università di Rijeka), B. Giovanola (Università di Macerata), G. Grandi (Università di Padova), L. Greco (Università di Oxford), M.L. Lanzillo (Università di Bologna), G. Maniaci (Università di Palermo), R. Martinelli (Università di Trieste), F. Menga (Università di Tubinga), F. Miano (Università di Roma, Tor Vergata), M. Monaldi (Università di Trieste), R. Mordacci (Università San Raffaele, Milano), B. De Mori (Università di Padova), G. Pellegrino (LUISS, Roma), U. Pomarici (Università della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”), V. Rasini (Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia), C. Rofena (Università Ca’ Foscari, Venezia), A. Schiavello (Università di Palermo), P. Šustar (Università di Rijeka), M. Trobok (Università di Rijeka), F. Turoldo (Università Ca’ Foscari, Venezia), M. Vaccarezza (Università di Genova), S. Zanardo (Università Europea di Roma).
Aristotle’s argument in Nicomachean Ethics 6 for the mutual implication of the virtues by one another is developed, and others added to it, in a repertory of arguments for this thesis in section 18 of the De anima libri mantissa (Supplement to the Book On the Soul) attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias. The last part of this is echoed in no.22 of the Ethical Problems attributed to Alexander; nos. 8 and 28 of the same collection are also relevant. A distinction can be drawn between the mutual implication of the virtues and the unity of virtue in some stronger sense; the arguments in the texts attributed to Alexander are examined to see whether they imply the latter more clearly than Aristotle’s own argument does, and the conclusion is drawn that some do so because of the use they make of the conception of the noble as the goal of virtuous action, or of virtue as a whole of parts. The treatment of Aristotle’s argument in the Byzantine commentaries is characterised by a preoccupation with the special status of practical wisdom.
Eugenio Lecaldano offers an important contribution to the tradition of italian liberal thought. In his book on bioethics he deals with the subject’s most relevant topics by taking a utilitarian perspective , which clearly demonstrates the influence of J.S. Mill’s philosophy. The indication of some significant analogies and distinction among different moral problems is one of the most interesting and useful aspects of Lecaldano’s work.
The dispute that divided political philosophy during the eighties into two camps, liberals versus communitarians, would now appear to be over. On both sides an atmosphere of détente seems to be prevailing over the reasons for dissent. Even an author such as Charles Larmore, one of the most well-known advocates of a strictly political view of liberalism, has recently anticipated the possibility of integrating the romantic and the communitarian legacy within the context of liberal individualism.In his latest book, The Romantic Legacy, Larmore elaborates on this possibility by analyzing four fundamental features of romanticism: imagination, a sense of belonging to a community, irony and authenticity. In this essay, the author highlights the ensuing difficulties and defends the need to maintain the liberal distinction between political and cultural rights and the corresponding separation of the respective spheres of pertinence.
For several decades now, and for a number of different reasons, there has been a significant reawakening of interest in Aristotle's practical philosophy. In particular it is widely held that his philosophy can work as a model for safeguarding the fundamental ethical demands without having to deny the natural essence of the human being and without having to resort to a metaphysical basis. This article sets out to question this theoretical approach. It considers in particular two main problems: the responsability of the individual and the role of the knowledge of good in ethics. The comparison between two recent publications (Susan Sauvé Meyer, Aristotle on Moral Responsability. Character and Cause, Oxford UK - Cambridge USA 1993; AAVV, Aristotle, Kant and the Stoic. Rethinking Happiness and Duty, ed. by S. Engstrom and J. Whiting, Cambridge 1996), is directed towards demonstrating that Aristotle's ethical thought does not meet demands nowadays considered essential. As for responsability, Aristotle succeeds in justifying responsability for actions but not responsability for character: the results are hardly acceptable (in contrast to what S.Sauvé Meyer holds). With regard to the knowledge of good, it is broadly estabilished that, in his ethics, Aristotle does not consider it to be a central theme (as in Kant's). The question is whether the lack of this particular feature is really, as many maintain, a positive characteristic. This paper aims to demonstrate that it is not the case, or at least it is not when evaluating ethical theories from a general current perspective, because nowadays the fundamental ethical problem seems indeed to be the identification of an intersubjective consent on the notions of good and evil. If, in our search for an effective model for modern reflection, we wish to turn our attention to ancient philosophy, then the Socratic/Platonic approach seems to be much more promising than that of Aristotle.
In Aristotle's ethics and anthropology the concept of normality or regularity, nature and norm subtly imply each other reciprocally.
The ethical criterium, explored throughout Nicomachean Ethics is that illustrated in detail by the "normal" conduct of the so called spoudaios. The point of contact between normality and naturalness is on the other side offered by the concept of physis, analysed both in Physics and in the biological works. Nature is what happens for the most, i.e. within the field of regularity and legality which characterises its processes.
But nature at the same time means telos, i.e. the finality and completion of these processes. What is normal is therefore also natural, and what is natural represents the normative level of phenomena. As for the ethical and anthropological field, the normal-natural human condition, and therefore the law which defines man's perfection, can be traced in the human political nature, i.e. in man's complete adjustment to the model given by the spoudaios. What falls outside this virtuous circle of normality, naturalness and legality is considered a moral deviation, which at the same time constitutes a teratology for and of mankind.
Accordingly, conformity to the naturalized public ethos excludes in Aristotle any recourse to the transcendental norm of the "ought to be" which had been one of the fundamental characteristics of Plato's ethics.
Scholars of aristotelian political philosophy generally agree that the project of the ideal polis of Politics VII – VIII is strictly linked to Ethics. They disagree however on the nature of the constitution outlined. It is broadly accepted that it is a "polity". In this paper I deal with the topic of aristocracy in aristotelian political thought and I show that, throughout Politics, Aristotle never swerved from the idea of aristocracy as the optimal constitution, where the truly virtuous rule. Finally I argue that the ideal polis of Politics VII – VIII, though it is never explicitly thus termed, is an aristocracy.
Moral reasoning traditionally distinguishes two types of evil: moral (ME) and natural (NE). The standard view is that ME is the product of human agency and so includes phenomena such as war, torture and psychological cruelty; that NE is the product of nonhuman agency, and so includes natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, disease and famine; and finally, that more complex cases are appropriately analysed as a combination of ME and NE. Recently, as a result of developments in autonomous agents in cyberspace, a new class of interesting and important examples of hybrid evil has come to light. In this paper, it is called artificial evil (AE) and a case is made for considering it to complement ME and NE to produce a more adequate taxonomy. By isolating the features that have led to the appearance of AE, cyberspace is characterised as a self-contained environment that forms the essential component in any foundation of the emerging field of Computer Ethics (CE). It is argued that this goes some way towards providing a methodological explanation of why cyberspace is central to so many of CE’s concerns; and it is shown how notions of good and evil can be formulated in cyberspace. Of considerable interest is how the propensity for an agent’s action to be morally good or evil can be determined even in the absence of biologically sentient participants and thus allows artificial agents not only to perpetrate evil (and for that matter good) but conversely to ‘receive’ or ‘suffer from’ it. The thesis defended is that the notion of entropy structure, which encapsulates human value judgement concerning cyberspace in a formal mathematical definition, is sufficient to achieve this purpose and, moreover, that the concept of AE can be determined formally, by mathematical methods. A consequence of this approach is that the debate on whether CE should be considered unique, and hence developed as a Macroethics, may be viewed, constructively, in an alternative manner. The case is made that whilst CE issues are not uncontroversially unique, they are sufficiently novel to render inadequate the approach of standard Macroethics such as Utilitarianism and Deontologism and hence to prompt the search for a robust ethical theory that can deal with them successfully. The name Information Ethics (IE) is proposed for that theory. It is argued that the uniqueness of IE is justified by its being non-biologically biased and patient-oriented: IE is an Environmental Macroethics based on the concept of data entity rather than life. It follows that the novelty of CE issues such as AE can be appreciated properly because IE provides a new perspective (though not vice versa). In light of the discussion provided in this paper, it is concluded that Computer Ethics is worthy of independent study because it requires its own application-specific knowledge and is capable of supporting a methodological foundation, Information Ethics.
In this paper, the author criticises some basic assumptions of Ferrara's book, which deal with: a) the concept of the so-called 'fact of pluralism'; b) the idea of linguistical turn; c) some of Ferrara's episodical but significant remarks on strategic rationality; d) the role of experts in sciences.
Among the aristotelian works which have been passed on to posterity there isn’t one specifically dedicated to the description of the man of politics : little can be said of the lost dialogue Politikós. In this choice Aristotle is very evidently in contrast with Plato who, in his political and philosophical theory, considered of great importance the doctrine of the man of politics.
This research sets out to indicate a solution to this problem by analysing the Protrepticus and the passages of the two Ethics which refer to the man of politics and to the legislator.
The analysis demonstrates that Aristotle, already in his early dialogue, favours the legislative function over the political function :this preference for the role of the nomothétês can be explained with reference to the importance Aristotle gives to law with a view to the education to virtue.
However, the absence of a clear collocation of the man of politics in the more general field of political science leaves open the question of the addressee of the "architectural politics": this problem can only be solved by drawing on implicit references.
The discussion on phrónêsis offers some explanation , even if in a doxographical form, of how Aristotle conceived the different levels of the political activity and the corresponding different types of politicians.
Nonetheless these passages are always asides to the more general discussion on virtue.