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).
This essay focuses on the topic of technique in the thought of the well-known biologist,
zoologist and anthropologist Adolf Portmann (1897-1982). First of all I’ll try to
understand the biological and anthropological roots, that make a naturally-artificial
(namely technical) being of a man. Then I’ll examine what kind of role and weight
Portmann assignes to the technique, underlining risks and chances, closely linked to it,
and showing the essentially expressive and self-expressive function of it. Finally I’ll
specify the relationship between the development of technique in our society and the loss
of the primary world: the aesthetic world of imagination.
From an epistemological point of view, the dichotomy Nature vs. Culture is today totally obsolete, because
of the new developments in the field of biology of complexity, and because of certain trends of
contemporary philosophy that, accepting the invitation and the new challenge of the “complexity”, suggest
an “anthropobiological” approach. The question of Technology – such as the 20th century Philosophy (in its
humanistic rhythms and in its anti-humanistic fugues, as well as in its biopolitical outbursts) shaped and
transmitted it – has its own sense only in this obsolete dichotomy, whether a great part of contemporary
philosophy (which is hampered by its ontological-hermeneutic foundations) likes it or not. In fact, the
question of Technology is often the hostage of Bioethics as a welfare service and not as a question of
Knowledge. Well, Technology is really just a medium or an inauthentic form of Knowledge? In any case: is it
a region inhabited only by the Human? What do we find before and out of Technology: maybe Nature and
Being? Moreover, is Technology in the bios or is it against the bios? And what if Nature and Artefact,
instead of being in opposition – and maybe synthesized later in the Consciousness or dissolved into the
Dasein – “fitted together” through hybridisation and crossbreeding? Philosophy seems to be suspicious of
Biology, it seems to avoid the question. Philosophy seems to prefer its old paradigms, it seems to refuse the
question in order of its peaceful tradition. Post-human hypothesis is the contemporary proof. But if Post-
Human, considered as a Theory of the Human and not as the “Latest Fashion” of the Being, as well as
contemporary theoretical approach seems to suggest, was not just an overused slogan? Why Philosophy, in
every time, seems to get out of breath when it meets Biology?
Focusing on the figure of cyborg, being an important concentration of fantasy and reality,
could represent a good starting point when trying to think more deeply on the
relationship between man and machine, which is an essential theme of the 20th century
philosophy. The article suggest how cartographies of the overall reality of contemporary
subjectivities can be developed and how the latest can hope with the transformation of
their modalities based upon the introduction of the machine within 'living bodies'.
This essay is a contribution to the analysis of the concept of trust and of the practical
relation based on it. First, we consider the centrality of trust in social life, as well as its
special status: if trusting deserves to be fostered institutionally, it cannot be imposed by
law nor encouraged from the viewpoint of personal utility, since it rests on individuals'
freedom. Second, we analyse the structure of trusting as a special case of relying on
someone: great attention is given to explaining what the trusting individual must
attribute to the person in whom he puts his trust, concerning both his practical
disposition and motivations. Lastly, we examine the way in which trust engenders trust,
thus creating a virtuous circle. If the circle of trust seems to be without foundations, the
relation with the mother, however, opens up, for us, its very possibility, while society
structures the space of its circulation; yet even the transcendence of society may need
Through the critical discussion of the most relevant hypotheses of Philosophical Practice
method, the essay try to delineate a new, both practical and theoretic, critical method,
connecting hermeneutics and deconstruction with aristotelic and neoplatonic concept of
sunaisthêsis (awareness) and Wittgenstein’s idea of übersichtliche Darstellung (perspicuous
representation or synoptic view).
The progressive taxation of income and wealth is a more politically debated than
philosophically elaborated topic. This paper aims to show how progressive taxes on
income and wealth within a welfare state can be justified from the perspective of social
justice as it is conceived by David Miller. To keep the argument simple it is argued that
the reduction and elimination of poverty is a necessary aim for the welfare state as it is
demanded by social justice. Progressive taxes on income and wealth are then justified for
the aim and in the height as it is necessary to eliminate or at least alleviate poverty. It can
also be shown that the progressive taxation of income and wealth is a simple and efficient
way to reach this goal as it does not need to be compensated.
Spaceflight is one of the most original and important phenomena of modern society, but
it’s not in the centre of modern intellectual reflection. Neither the technical and natural
sciences (which offer of course the real condition of the ballistic flight into and through
outer space) nor the cultural and social sciences can explain this human event as a human
phenomenon by their means: Naturalism (or Darwinism) on the one hand cannot explain
why some sort of life leaves the environment of living, and Culturalism – always occupied
with the symbolic mediated life-world of human beings – develops no systematic sense for
vertical leaving the earth. The paper introduces modern Philosophical Anthropology as
an adequate theory to understand spaceflight as a possible result of the condito humana.
The thought of Max Scheler, Helmuth Plessner and Arnold Gehlen since the twenties of
the twenty century devoleped a theory of man co-variant to the breakthrough of
spaceflight in Germany (and other countries) and mirrors in its concepts of human being –
for instance ‘excentric positionality’ – the human possibility of this epoch-making event.
“Excentric positionality” (Plessner) exposes man as a special living being characterized
by the power of imagination (rather then rationality), by overflowing driving forces
(“Antriebsüberschüssigkeit” (Gehlen)) and by “worldopenness” (Scheler) to the cosmos.
So this living being is able to anticipate the attainment of places beyond the earth and its
biosphere (by imagination), it is willing and able to invent rocket launches, which
provides the initial thrust to overcome the force of gravity (by overflowing drive power),
and it is ready to encounter unfamiliar kinds of extraterrestrial life and intelligence (by its
worldopenness). Having explained spaceflight in this way as a serious human enterprise it
is expectable that in former centuries the invention of spaceflight with and without
humans on board will be remembered as the key event in the 20th century.
Gentile’s actualism is the outcome of a current of thoughts that emphasizes subjectivism
in the idealist understanding of reality, The close connection between the subject and the
individual is what Calogero put in question, detaching himself from Gentile and setting
high value on individual freedom. This paper is a historical reconstruction of Calogero’s
philosophy and its relations with XX century Italian political history.
The opposition between tecnomania and technophobia has an ideological and fideistic
character. This essay proposes a philosophical critique of that opposition, carried out
through genealogy and anthropology of technology. On the guidelines of ontology,
biology and paleoanthropology of machines, it is detected the fundamental difference
between “apotelestic” and “sympleromatic” machines, two dimensions that converged in
ancient techne. On this basis it becomes evident that the era of technological civilization,
in which only the apotelestic size prevails, it is a time of impoverishment and
anthropological erosion, insofar as humanity continues to make and to recognize itself in
the mirror of its own machinations.
Not everyone would agree with Norberto Bobbio that Max Weber is a classic in political
philosophy. Assuming that the “ethical neutrality” in sociology and economics involves
Weber’s dismissal of classical philosophical questions concerning the good society and the
best form of government, the aim of this paper is to demonstrate that Weber’s call for
coherence and decency – beyond the distinction of the ethic of conviction
(Gesinnungsethik) and the ethic of responsibility (Verantwortungsethik) – is still relevant
for political philosophy and philosophers who reflect on the relations between ethics and
The practice of reason-giving normally belongs to our everyday life. People involved in
this practice acknowledge each other as persons, and in turn reasonably ask each other for
justification regarding our respective actions. However, if we ask why these persons
provide reasons for their respective actions, or in what grounds they should do certain
things, the answer is neither easy nor obvious. In this paper I want to consider the
meaning of “desire”, “will”, and “autonomy” within Darwall’s and Rawls’s respective
works. I claim that both Darwall and Rawls hold that moral psychology plays a
fundamental role in grounding justified reasons for acting (and for coming into the
reason-giving practice). Furthermore, I suggest that Darwall differently grasps Rawls’s
moral psychology, placing more value on the will, rather than desire, as well as
envisioning a more or less robust notion of “autonomy”. My aim is to show that, pace
Darwall, Rawls has a different position about desire, its object, and the value of the will,
one which enables us to ground the reason-giving practice on “weaker” assumptions.
Moving from Roberto Marchesini’s – one of the exponent of the so called posthumanism –
criticism against the dialectics “technophoby versus technomania”, this paper claims to
point out and discuss the unexpressed anthropological assumption lying at the basis of a
supposed unbiased approach to technology. In the idea of overcoming the traditional
image of human being (essentialist and anthropocentric), which may be considered
restrictive as it does not fully express its “being able to be”, a more specific thought is
hidden: that human being were, in fact, a basically creature of lack (an integral
Mängelwesen), needing healing and salvation. Technology was invested with such a
sotheriological aim, so that it is its thaumaturgical virtue which has to redeem man. It
realizes its purpose through a process called neoambientalità (neoenvironment), according
with the following stages: pauperizzazione (pauperization) and ferinizzazione
(feralization). Deprived of his own peculiar mondanità (wordliness), its having-world
(Welt), human being becomes poorer from an ontological point of view and therefore
placed into a mere environment (Umwelt) as an animal among the others. Such an
environment that is not a physical or natural one, but a technological environment,
which is why it is a neoenvironment. Behind the supposed technoequanimity claimed by
posthumanism hides a pure technolatry. This argument lead us to affirm that discriminant
and metron which has to be used in inquiring into the Frage nach der Tecnhik (the question
concerning technology) is a fideistic one. In order to face it, philosophy must always
answer to this question in one way: confirming its atheistic calling in referring to its own
skeptical ethos. When technology, as shape of the contemporary world, claims its epochal
injunction, philosophy has to make an act of supreme desertion.
Communication can only happen if there is inter-subjectivity. If you communicate with
no one, you do not communicate. The study of communication disorders and their
languages, verbal and nonverbal, allows us to investigate also the pathology of the
relationship between subjects. In communication, the aspects concerning the relationship
between subjects who communicate are on the same level as the communicated message.
In fact, if we think about it, we understand when there is contradiction between the
utterance and the mental state with which it is said. In analysis of the most serious
mental illness it is clear. It is also clear that, in cases of ‘double bind’, the paradoxical
bond that binds the most is more related to the love for the subject who orders the
impossible thing, respect to the impossible thing that is ordered. To stay away from the
most serious forms of disease, the inter-subjective relationship must practice the
recognition. Good communication exists where two who are related recognize themselves
in their own truth. If this truth is always hidden by the linguistic sign, then it doesn’t
exist, because there is only the sign, which becomes a sign of nothing. Therefore, language
cannot keep us indefinitely far from the truth of communicated things and from the truth
of the relationship that we live when we communicate.
The paper proposes a rethinking of the “Techniksfrage” and the “post-humanism”
focused on the discussion of the human nature and the man’s place in the world. 0)
“Philosophy of technology” went in search of an Universal Essence of The Technology,
ending with the construction of the opposition “techno-phobics/techno-maniacs”: it
forgot the plurality of the technologies, and represented the technology as an
unsurpassable destiny (Evil or Good). 1) Indeed, a “philosophical anthropology of the
technology” makes it possible to think the relationship man/technology in a “soberly
realistic” way: if man is naturally un-natural, the technological animal because of his
relational openness to the world, then technai express the modes through which he relates
to the world and “declines” his generic nature. 2) Therefore, we cannot oppose a “subject”
(human/natural) to an “object” (artificial/unnatural): we have to understand the faktum
of the relation which constitutes both them as always opened (subjectile and objectile). 3)
According to this, the post-human could be thought as a overcoming-uplifting (post) of
the evolutionary and existential logic that characterizes the human nature (human): a
over-humanistic horizon could not be realistically conceived without the body, ec-centric
center of human action – of the possible domination of the domination of nature.
The contrast between organic and mechanic arose as part of the reactions against the
French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. It ran throughout the 19th, it fuelled
“Romantic” reactions to Newtonian science and the antithesis between Kultur and
Zivilisation. This contrast is still evident, to a greater or lesser extent, in many of the
present criticisms of industrial society and technology. There is an interesting continuity
between the arguments used by the early critics of what Carlyle would call the «age of
machines» and some of the arguments and ways of thinking that are current today. The
paper is devoted to stress this continuity by considering some representative authors,
including Burke, Blake, Coleridge, Wordsworth, Carlyle, Ruskin, Sombart, Spengler,
Scheler, T. Mann. Their interactions with political and social thought are also discussed.
Aim of this essay is to try, against the background of a reading of the F. T. Marinetti
novel “Mafarka il futurista” and of the pamphlet “Democrazia futurista”, a
deconstruction of so-called aestheticization of politics (Benjamin) proposed by Marinetti
and Futurism, and in particular of the idea of a technocratic government at the helm of
the society. All the Marinetti’s deeds confront themselves with an ethic/aesthetic double
bind, that cannot be considered as a denial of the techniques, but it is rather an essential
reduction of the techniques in the light of their primordial and constitutive genealogical