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).
If (civil) religion can show what the simple practice of human universality necessarily postulates, that is, the foundation of the claim to eternal life, thus preventing this simple practice from appearing as a model that will implode (that is, destined to death with no return), then (religious) civilization can in turn offer practical-universal prerequisites for the purification of demands that religion makes. It is in actual fact impossible for any true religion to speak against our shared humanness. Or rather, it is impossible for religion to deny the universal dynamics of mutual recognition.
Through the articles written by Antonio Gramsci during the first year and a half of release of “L’Ordine Nuovo”, you can see the development lines of what the author has established during the World War I on the historical and political analysis of Italian and European society. These ideas deal directly with Factory Council’s doctrine: Gramsci, inspired by the voluntary initia-tives in Turin factories, builds, since the summer of 1919, a revolutionary theory gathered on the role of working-class institutions. The extensive task of the Factory, in a devastated post-war industrial society, forces the political thinker to reshape the traditional functions of the two representative proletarian institutions: Labor Union and Political Party. Only rethinking about how they work, it’s possible to lead to success the revolutionary movement of the most aware Italian workers: from Turin industries can arise the future construction of Italian Soviet repub-lic that, after the victory of the Revolution in all countries, will be melted in international communist society. This theory stands in a particular position between socialist thinkers of that period, not only towards Reformists or Unitarians Maximalists, but also towards elements of the Communist faction that breaks up with the PSI during national congress of Livorno (Janu-ary 1921) to create a new revolutionary Party.
In a well-known passage of the The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,
Max Weber declares his interest in analyzing the influence of those psychological
sanctions which, originating in religious belief and the practice of religion, give a
direction to practical conduct and held the individual to it. This paper investigates
Max Weber’s vision of the psychology (and sociology) of worldviews, focusing on
two related problems: (1) how religious beliefs and the practice of religion originate
psychological sanctions and impulses that motivate people to act in certain ways,
and (2) how such psychological sanctions and impulses can become organized in a
more or less rationalized conduct of life.
The paper suggests that the centrality of the sociology of religion in Weber’s
thought is in part a consequence of the fact that the religious sphere makes it
particularly evident that there is a deep interconnection among the human need for
ordering empirical reality, the emergence of social and life-orders, and the
formation of personality (through dualistic self-representations).
In Ernst Troeltsch’s view, Christian ethics, more than any other religious ethics,
achieves a synthesis between religious group and moral ideas. The main difficulty
of this synthesis is attempting to harmonize the relationship between unworldly
goods and values and worldly goods and values. The history of Christian ethics,
especially in its dimension of social ethics, it may, therefore, as the history of forms
in which it is represented the “including opposition” of the religious purpose with
the worldly purposes. In this essay, we’re trying to retrace, even if in broad terms,
this history whose reconstruction Troeltsch constantly devotes his attention as the
necessary way to determine the content and tasks of Christian social ethics
appropriate to the needs of complex modern society.
In his works, and especially in the Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel often uses literary references. Among them, we can find also some characters that, in Hegel’s view, embody a worst aspect of the modern subject, “the ethical infirmity”, the inability to act, to realize themselves objectifying their inner determinations. Characters of this kind are Allwill and Woldemar, protagonists of two homonymous novels of Jacobi, that Hegel critically analyzes in Faith and Knowledge. Through the Hegelian analysis of these two literary figures, we will try to highlight the features and causes of this “ethical infirmity”, showing how Hegel see it as a one of the diseases to which it is structurally exposed the modern subjectivity.
Hegel’s definition of ‘free will’ and ‘person’ gets over a phenomenological or psychological definition of these concepts. My essay explains how Hegel justifies the placing of his theory of free will in a philosophy of Mind analyzing the concept of ‘recognition’ in the Phenomenology as a section of the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences as well as the main steps of The practical Spirit, the second part of the section Psychology. With regard to this last science my essay clarifies the essential differences between freedom of the will and freedom of choice. These differences only explain how the free will could develop as objective Spirit in the third science involved by Hegel towards a proper definition of freedom, i.e. the philosophy of Right. In the philosophy of Right as a part of Hegel’s System of philosophical sciences the free will finds its own adequate reality and the concept of a person can be explained without the mistakes caused by a phenomenological or psychological approach to it. Against some interpretations which identify Hegel’s definition of free will with communitarian practices, the final part of my essay focuses on the importance of the concept of a person to explain the general structure of the philosophy of Right.
Instrumental reasons play a central role in our practical deliberations because we apply the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable not only to beliefs, but to actions also. The question of what one has an instrumental reason to do is an important substantive question that is relevant to the general theory of practical reasoning and to ethics, too. It will be my object in the present study to show that we have different kinds of instrumental reasons, which depend solely on their logical structure. To this end, I shall in the first section deal with the validity of instrumental reasoning in general. In the remainder of the paper I outline five types of instrumental reasons and show how they depend on their logical structure. In so doing, I hope to shed some light on the concept of instrumental reasons, which is not well understood.
The essay aims to analyze the relationship between mind and body in the Hegel’s philosophy of subjective spirit. Through a rapid reconstruction of the influences of emerging empirical sciences, such as biology with his vitalist positions, physiognomy and phrenology, the essay aims to highlight not only the role that in the structure of Hegel’s view assumes the teleological vision derived from Aristotle, mediated by third Kantian critique, but also the epistemological significance of the Hegelian methodological attitude. Hegel rejects the attempts to bring back the relationship mind-body to a dualistic view, and proposes a dialectic solution that goes beyond the rigidity of an attitude which is crushed both from a naturalist perspective as well as from an anti-naturalist one. This methodological approach may still offer an interesting contribution to the contemporary debate.
In this paper I present a relation between two principles on individuals that John Rawls presented in his two major works. First one is natural duty of justice in A Theory of Justice and second one is moral duty of civility in Political Liberalism. I start with the claim that natural duty of justice is the best answer to the problem of legitimacy of liberal institutions posed by A. John Simmons. But, in the circumstances of reasonable pluralism it is not clear how can such a vague duty guide us in political reasoning. That is why I claim that moral duty of civility, which demands that we respect boundaries of public reason, is the way how we fulfill our natural duty of justice in circumstances of reasonable pluralism. This implies that moral duty of civility has its moral grounding in natural duty of justice. Then I try to present how this view can answer to some objections raised against the idea of public reason and also how it can refers to some problems of distributive justice.
It’s not enough to be present to be even the content of a show. Something is the content of a show if its presence is produced and organized functionally to the judgment that the public will give. A very spectacular life must consist in a continuous production of new things to show. Now, Giovanni Gentile’s idealism teaches that spiritual life is a continuous production of contents that are present at the thought: they exist only because they are present at the thought. For this idealism, life of thought is a totally spectacular life: to be present as a content of the thought is the same of to be created by the thought who wants its creations and its objects. So, looking at the actualism, it’s possible to understand the reason of the current tendency to transform every experience in a spectacular experience: in the illusory belief that through the production and through the control of our presence we can produce and control the whole of our existence, everyone feeds his desire to appear on the media, that means, to appear (and to be) as widely as possible.