Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics (2001) III/1

Details


INFORMATION ON THE JOURNAL


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



DIREZIONE / EDITOR:

Riccardo Fanciullacci (Venezia) riccardofanciullacci@libero.it

Pierpaolo Marrone (Trieste) marrone@units.it



REDAZIONE / EDITORIAL BOARD:

Elvio Baccarini (Rijeka) ebaccarini@ffri.hr

Roberto Festa (Trieste) festa@units.it

Giovanni Giorgini (Bologna) giovanni.giorgini@unibo.it

Edoardo Greblo (Trieste) edgreblo@tin.it

Fabio Polidori (Trieste) polidori@units.it



WEBMASTER:

Enrico Marchetto (Trieste) enrico.marchetto@gmail.com


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).


E&P è indicizzata in / E&P is indexed on

Browse

Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 5 of 14
  • Publication
    In defense of moral rights
    (EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2001)
    de Mori, Barbara
    The Universal declaration of 1948 celebrated the belief in human rights as a great moral value. But what does this belief mean exactly? What are human rights precisely? Admitting the existence of human rights may cause difficulties for the moral theories involved and raise many problems. The problem of justification is particularly relevant: are human rights grounded on nature, that is on something unalterable and absolute, or are they the product of history and social life? Different moral theories of human rights give different answers. This paper, therefore, tries to investigate the controversial question of the justification of human rights by comparing the two main positions forwarded in proof of their existence, naturalization and denaturalization, which are developed inside the main moral theories of human rights. After showing the advantages and disadvantages of these rival arguments, some conclusions are drawn that could throw some light on the question of the justification of a concept, such as that of human rights, on which our present social life appears to be intrinsically based.
      1165  803
  • Publication
    Due concezioni della ragione pubblica a confronto. Dissezione analitica della nozione rawlsiana di ragione pubblica
    (EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2001)
    Schiavello, Aldo
    The idea of public reason — as well as the contraposition among public reason and private reasons — is strictly linked to the rise of pluralistic societies, societies in which the main problem is probably that of finding a lowest common denominator between different and often conflicting reasons. In a nutshell, the public reason is (or should be) just the core of principles and values shared by all the different philosophical and political doctrines. This paper is mainly focused on the very well-known conception of public reason developed by John Rawls as from the publishing of Political Liberalism. The aim of the first half of this paper is that of pointing out some serious difficulties connected with Rawls’ originary defence of public reason. In particular, in Political Liberalism Rawls assumes, without looking after to find some compelling evidence, that in pluralistic societies like ours the only way for understanding each other is that of constraining public debates and deliberations within the boundaries fixed by public reason, renouncing to deploy the whole truth. In this way, Rawls lays himself open to the critics of not taking seriously the freedom of speech. Furthermore, I argue that public reason is not able to ban comprehensive doctrines, either philosophical or religious, from public debates. In the second half of the paper, it will be argued for a "soft", more convincing, idea of public reason. In brief, the conception of public reason as "barrage" against all the reasons exceeding a political conception of justice will be replaced by the conception of public reason as "common denominator" or "translator" of these reasons.
      1232  2234
  • Publication
    Moral Dilemmas in Greek Tragedies: a Discussion of Aeschylus’s Agamemnon and Sophokles’s Antigone
    (EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2001)
    Cowley, Christopher
    By looking at the situations faced by the protagonists of two classic plays (in purely philosophical terms rather than literary-critical or historical), I try to shed light on what it means to face an insoluble moral dilemma, what it might mean to deal with it, and how the dilemma can reveal certain crucial information about the decision-maker (i) to us readers-spectators, (ii) to other characters in the play who witness, or are implicated by, the incident, (iii) as well as, and perhaps most importantly, to the protagonist himself. In so doing, I distinguish the above dilemmas from moral-prudential dilemmas and from apparent dilemmas constituted by the mere lack of epistemological access. Indeed, I generally resist the various reductive approaches characteristic of much analytic moral philosophy, and challenge the notion of a uniquely right answer to which all rational moral agents can be held accountable.
      2879  6153
  • Publication
    Trascendentalità e ragione argomentativa
    (EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2001)
    Pieretti, Antonio
    This paper is a critical examination of Apel’s and Habermas’ models of human communication. Common to both philosophers is the stress on the relation between normative and empirical aspects of ethics. Although this relation is necessary in every ethical-oriented communication, the author shows that both in Apel and in Habermas it rests rather on a rational procedure stemming from relevant but limited fields - e.g. jurisprudence - than on an ethics of communication of our being in the world.
      1011  770
  • Publication
    Sul dono come relazione pratica trascendentale
    (EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2001)
    Vigna, Carmelo
    In this essay the author maintains that exclusively in the range of transcendental appearance the notion of gift is given its truest and fundamental definition, for the act of giving never appears as such. This must be intended as follows: none of us, in phenomenological terms, has the capacity of understanding whether something is really a gift, or whether it is a false gift. Gifts are, in their material nature, the originary position where two different subjectivities reveal their mutual relationship. Through the gift, therefore, a subjectivity donates herself (or not) to another. Since the possible relationships between human beings are basically of two types, either of supremacy or of recognition, in the act of giving the related transcendental subjects appear to be either as reciprocally recognised (this is the case of the true gift) or as in conflict (the false gift). If the true gift represents the positive aspect of relationship, then the act of giving can not be experienced with a sort of abandon. I abandon myself to the freedom of the other subject, because I can never be absolutely sure that the other party really shares, deep in his heart, the relationship of recognition. The true gift can therefore be conceived, in its essence, as the fundamental basis of all ethical relationships, which clearly are of recognition and not of dominion. These ethical relationships, as stable model for mutual recognition, must not be simply left to the fragility of human freedom. They require a "metaphysical" covering.
      972  1385