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).
Margalit believes that betrayal and its complex phenomenology offer a strong case for reshaping the difference between ethics and morals. Ethics would concern strong relationships and moral those weak. Betrayal would be the breaking of the strong bonds present in ethics. My criticism is that strong bonds is neither objective nor interpersonal, but is perceived as such only by those who feel betrayed. The only exception is represented by emotional and sexual betrayal.
According to the dominant narrative, italian workerism ought to be credited for its rejection of «the party form» as a mode of political organisation. The aim of this article is to challenge this narrative. Starting with a brief account of the recent reassessment of the party in Hardt and Negri’s Assembly, it articulates a reading of Negri’s reflection on political organisation in the 1970’s. Resulting from this reading is a distinction of three models of the «party form» – the party of composition, the party of autonomy and the party of separation – which all represent various ways of articulating a political ontology of social being with an ontological politics of social emancipation.
This essay aims at clarifying the concept of «multitude» through a comparison between Negri’s work and some of the critiques addressed to his thought. In the first part of the paper, I will consider the relationship between multitude and the individual, in order to confute those who think that the category of «multitude» is a liberal one. Then, I will analyze the connection between the multitude and class-working class, so as to highlight that in Negri’s theory there is not an opposition between those categories. Finally, the last paragraph will examine the forms of the «multitudinarian class struggle» and the hiatus existing between will and potentiality of the multitude related to the issue, still not resolved, of its organization. That is, the long-standing issue of the relationship between theory and «practice» of the multitude.
The article discusses Menga’s important book and it is divided in three parts: the first one stresses the precise presentation and evaluation of the state of the art about the problem “justice and next generations”; the second one aims at enhancing the passage proposed by Menga from a classical approach to a phenomenological approach to this theme. Third, it analyzes consequences and problems involved in the idea of a deformalization of the temporality which is requested by the emergence of an injunction of justice from the future.
In this paper I seek to respond to some of the critiques and remarks raised by the authors invited by the journal Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics to discuss my book on intergenerational justice Lo scandalo del futuro. Per una giustizia intergenerazionale (Roma, 2016). In engaging these critical reviews coming from the perspective of different fields – especially, legal philosophy, ethics and theoretical philosophy – I also attempt to readdress some pivotal points of the book which need be better formulated, deepened and revised.
The aim of this preliminary work is to trace an affinity between Emerson’s and Nietzsche’s philosophies in relation to one of Emerson's recurrent themes, self-reliance, whose several forms will be analyzed: inconsistency, nonconformism and nomadic thought. Despite the lack of a systematic discussion of self-reliance, Nietzsche shows in many passages of his production a clear consonance with the Emersonian instances which encourage this virtue of independence.
This essay aims to clarify the theory of «time» in Negri's thought by considering his two fundamental test on this issue, «The Constitution of Time» and 'Kairòs, Alma Venus, Multitude'. The former text, written in prison in 1982, can be considered the high point of the first period of Negri’s thought, which poses the basis for his «ontological turn». The second text, written during Negri’s period in prison after his Parisian exile, develops a theory of temporality as the realization of his political theory in between 'Insurgencies' and 'Empire'.
Gianluca Mori's book analyzes atheistic thought in the historical period between the second half of the 1600s and the second half of the 1700s. Spinoza and D'Holbach are set respectively as the initial and final point of this path articulating through the figures of Cudworth and Bayle, the clandestine atheists (Meslier, Boulanvillier, Du Marsais and Fréret), Toland, Collins, Hume, Voltaire and Diderot. A complex vision of the concept of atheism in modern age is sketched in the text. In the Author’s perspective, the individuation of the path of modern atheism marks its progressive emancipation from its intellectually and morally negative connotation and, more generally, underlies the overcoming of a further stage in the uneven route towards the affirmation of an open society.
This essay tries to identify the fundamentals of the metaphysics Toni Negri elaborates in relation to the changes within the capitalist system. In the domain of real subsumption, we individuate in the absolute contingency the field of the ontological constitution. This field makes the Transcendental idealism the theoretical opponent of Negri’s metaphysical position, since the Transcendental idealism is generally based on demands concerning measurements and hierarchization.
The paper, in dialogue with Ferdinando Menga’s book, is devoted to discussing some problems about the issue of responsibility towards future generations. Especially, starting from a few points about the danger of the “bomb”, one wonders how it is possible to be responsible for an act that, among its consequences, will have the one of entirely extinguishing the very future human beings as those to whom one is supposed to respond. The paradox will be that we never could answer for the most criminal act, the one that will destroy humanity. For solving this illogicality, it is necessary to think a new concept of responsibility.
In this article I explore the main themes of Antonio Negri’s interpretation of Giacomo Leopardi’s work, published in his essay Lenta Ginestra. Saggio sull’ontologia di Giacomo Leopardi (1987). Negri’s reading focusses on the notions of imagination, illusion, second nature, power, so as to sketch the portrait of Leopardi as a philosopher and a politician. In this sense, poetry becomes an ethics to build the future, a materialistic praxis through which the construction of common forms of life, within history and nature, becomes possible.
Philosophers interested in John Rawls’s international political theorizing have paid considerable attention to the duty of assistance as a key notion of his Law of Peoples. However, in focusing on contentious-theoretical and practical implications of this duty, they have not thoroughly examined the more immediate question of whether this duty is sustainable from the perspective of Rawls’s Law of Peoples itself. The thesis of the present article is that Rawls’s duty of assistance is internally unsustainable, as it cannot be adequately justified from within his Law of Peoples. A threefold argument is developed. First, Rawls’s own explanation of the duty of assistance within the Law of Peoples is unclear and confusing. Second, others’ ‘Rawlsian’ ideal-theoretical and non-ideal-theoretical attempts to justify the duty of assistance probably inevitably fail. Third, Rawls’s Law of Peoples leads to skepticism about the duty of assistance’s applicability to the non-ideal world. The article concludes that at most a principle of corrective justice in ideal theory combined with a right of assistance and an ad hoc duty of corrective justice in non-ideal theory is maintainable within the Law of Peoples.
After reconstructing the key arguments of Ferdinando Menga’s book Lo scandalo del futuro, the present article draws upon the book’s conclusions to develop the theme concerning the relationship with posterity and the responsibility that follows from it. It aims to advance some arguments in support of the recognition of the rights of future generations.
The opinion by the historians on the Industrial revolution has been controversial. The dramatic representation of the awful conditions of the English workers during the Nineteenth century affected public opinion and the way capitalism has been considered by the intellectuals and the general public as well. During the 50s of the Twentieth century a group of scholars, under the guide of the leading Austrian economist Frederich von Hayek, challenged this representation. They refuted the idea that Industrial revolution made the life of the workers worse. The conditions of the workers were not better before the advent of Industrial revolution, and, in some measure, there was an improvement of their level of life thanks to capitalism.
Antonio Negri’s thought is a reflection on the concept of sovereignty. Since the end of the 1950s until the most recent texts, Negri works on and against the concept of sovereignty, identifying limits, breaches and advances through the critique of political economy. In this paper we consider some texts of a very large production, that allow us to highlight these crucial elements. From the essays of philosophy of law in La Forma Stato, passing through the pamphlets contained in 'I libri del rogo', from the intellectual production during 1980s and 1990s, until Empire. These are phases that coincide with the end of the – so called by Negri – planner-State and with the birth of the Stato-crisi, stages whose latest development is the emersion of a new global order after the fall of the Sovietic Union and the end of the Cold War.
In his book 'Lo scandalo del futuro. Per una giustizia intergenerazional Ferdinando Menga suggests a phenomenologically founded ethics of responsibility towards the future generations, with a special reference to the contemporary thinking of otherness, difference and strangeness. The focus is on an urgent questioning of the future not only as another time, or the time of the other, but also as the challenge of an “Otherwise than time”.
The Aristotelian idea of φρόνησις (phronesis) is an invaluable resource to help amending the limits of deontological and consequentialist theories. It permits to free the moral decision from rules and 'standard' principles and to give contextual motivations.The ethical competence, as a process of construction of moral judgment aimed to give reason for our choices, is a contemporary development of this intuition.
This paper discusses Carmine Di Martino’s last work Viventi umani e non umani. Tecnica, linguaggio e memoria (Edizioni Libreria Cortina, Milano 2017, pp. 204). The book deals with two main questions, i.e. the anthropogenesis and the comparison between human and non-human living beings (notably, anthropomorphic apes), with reference to three topics: technology, language and memory. In particular, these pages highlight the phenomenological bon sens that the author chooses to approach the vexed question regarding the relation between “the two cultures”. That is to say, besides encouraging an authentic (i.e. radical and equal) dialogue between philosophy and sciences, he vindicates the epistemological peculiarity and the consequent irreplaceable role of the philosophical thought.