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 in the world of practice. The journal has an anonymous double peer review referee system. Three issues per year are expected.
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 E&P 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 does not have any submission charges.
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), 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), R. CAPORALI (Bologna), A.A. CASSI (Bergamo), G. CATAPANO (Padova), L. COVA (Trieste), S. CREMASCHI (Vercelli), G. CEVOLANI (Modena), U. CURI (Padova), G. DE ANNA (Udine), P. DONATELLI (Roma), P. DONINI (Milano), M. FARAGUNA (Trieste), M. FERRARIS (Torino), L. FLORIDI (Oxford), R. FREGA (Bologna), S. FUSELLI (Verona), C. GALLI (Bologna), R. GIOVAGNOLI (Roma), P. KOBAU (Torino), E. IRRERA (Bologna), E. LECALDANO (Roma), 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), A. RUSSO (Trieste), M. SBISÀ (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), S. ZEPPI † (Trieste).
Comitato Scientifico Internazionale / International Advisory Board:
J 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), N. TARCOV (USA), D. WEBB (UK), J.P. ZAMORA BONILLA (Spain).
After some introductory remarks on constitutive rules I proceed to one problem still insufficiently
handled in the constitutive rules research: that of how coordinate the definitional
exigence that constitutive rules should define new (types of ) activities and, on the other
hand, the claim that constitutive rules should be a disjoint class with that of regulative or
prescriptive rules. I analyse briefly several examples, such as promises or interest-charging,
or ‘sprezzatura’, and set out a number of problems and complexities inherent in these examples.
Yet I also indicate commonalities shared by all of them.Short of offering a solution,
I put forward the hypothesis that constitutive rules may in some cases be in rerum natura
bound up with prescriptive norms and can be divided from them only in virtue of a theoretical
The book of Steven Nadler, The Best of all possible World. A Story of Philosophers, God and
Evil gives an account of the philosophical discussions among Leibniz, Malebranche and Arnauld
about the freedom of God and the problem of evil. Starting from an imaginary encounter
of the three philosopher in Paris, Nadler reconstructs the complex web of intellectual
relations between Leibniz and Malebranche about the Theodicy, between Malebranche
and Arnauld about the Treatise on the nature and grace, and between Leibniz and Arnauld
about the Discourse of metaphysics. From this reconstruction emerges a sketch of the controversy
in which Leibniz’s and Malebranche’s conceptions of God are characterized by the
primacy of the intellect over will, whereas Arnauld’s conception of God, according to Descartes’
perspective, states the absolute freedom of God’s will. According to Nadler, Arnauld’s
battle against Malebranch’s and Leibniz’s rationalist conception of God is subterraneously
guided by his feeling of great proximity between these conceptions and the position
about God expressed by Spinoza in the Ethics: a God without will and understanding, a
power that simply produces the world in a necessary, meaningless way.
The paper is devoted to a re-examination of the issue of the Human-Animal boundary in
the light of the idea that the boundary has been renegotiated every time humans has perceived
a challenge to their supremacy in the hierarchy of beings. By making reference to
the Darwinian framework and also to the reflections developed by the philosopher and anthropologist
Raymond Corbey in his book The Methaphysics of Apes. Negotiating the Animal-Human Boundary, the paper invites to focus the attention to the necessity of reestablishing
some balance between humans and animals by doing reference to the quality of
life of all living beings.
Elvio Baccarini has responded generously to my book Medical Ethics: Ordinary Concepts,
Ordinary Lives (2008), but I would like to respond to three of his criticisms: first, about the
role that theory ought to play in, and in relation to, moral experience; second, about my
defence of a doctor’s right to conscientiously object to performing legal abortions; and
third, to the reality of posthumous harm. Baccarini claims that I have overstated my
claims, and drawn illegitimate metaphysical conclusions from people’s ordinary language.
However, I argue that moral language is special precisely because of the way it expresses an
irreducible personal perspective.