Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics (2026) XXVIII/1

In this article, I challenge two paradigmatic forms of heterodox (meta-)philosophical naturalism – second-nature naturalism and liberal naturalism – and outline a form of naturalism capable of avoiding their shortcomings. I first criticize John McDowell’s arguments for a second-nature naturalism by showing how they give rise to a merely negative and philosophically unsatisfactory definition of nature. In the second place, I confront a meta-philosophical position developed in McDowell’s wake, i.e., liberal naturalism. As I argue, Liberal Naturalism inherits the shortcomings of McDowell’s stance with regard to the philosophical practice it advocates. After illustrating how liberal naturalism implies the rejection of any continuity between scientific and philosophical discourse, I conclude by sketching a form of meta-philosophical naturalism capable of doing justice to both heterodox and orthodox naturalism.

The main aim of this paper is to explore whether the ordinary concept of fairness can be applied directly to advertising and, if so, what that application requires. After illustrating John Rawls’s idea of justice as fairness and the application of his theory of justice to advertising, the paper focuses on the origin of this idea by describing H. L. A. Hart’s analysis of the concept of fairness. The question of whether the concept of fairness that emerges from Hart’s analysis can be directly applied to advertising is then considered in the light of a discussion of the impact of advertising on consumer autonomy: can we say that, in some sense, certain types of advertising of goods or services impinge on their recipients’ autonomy and, if so, that the burden they impose benefits other market participants? An affirmative answer to this question means that the concept of fairness resulting from Hart’s conceptual analysis can be directly applied to these types of advertisements for goods or services and can be used to support restrictions on them.

The aim of this article is to examine and discuss the hypothesis put forth by Ernesto Laclau in his On Populist Reason (2005) that the identity of a group or community is constructed rhetorically through the act of naming, whereby it universalises a particular demand. Conversely, it will be argued that this process serves to reaffirm a pre-existing identity. The aforementioned identity is constituted by the way in which individuals conceptualise what it means to be human. This encompasses the image of being human that informs individuals’ expectations and experiences, as well as their behaviours.

The concept of freedom that Günther Anders proposes in his youthful work Die Weltfremdheit des Menschen has a theoretical value and indicates freedom “from” the world as a characteristic of the human being; indeed, unlike the animal, man is not integrated into the world. This basic freedom is the root of the freedom “to” do developed in Die antiquertheit des Menschen. Free productivity fostered the myth of progress and reduced the human being to the status of an “antiquated” entity. Due the disparity between human faculties, technocratic totalitarianism has assumed control of human existence, has created a condition of social conformity and finally has deprived man of morality.

The debate about the principles and values that guide consumers' choices in eating animal products has gained considerable interest in food ethics in the last decades. The paper aims to analyse some arguments on using animals for food purposes and the underlying ethical perspectives starting from the discussions of a sample of Italian consumers. The description of the empirical study results is introduced by a brief presentation of the context that has led to the growth of public attention on issues related to animal farming for food and the development of the actual European regulatory framework on animal protection. Moreover, some of the main philosophical perspectives in animal ethics that are involved in this debate are presented. Consumers' main arguments for using animals as food were categorized into four macro areas: animals, the production process, people's health and well-being, and the environment. The results are interpreted in light of the ethical theories and some food ethics issues, such as the right to access information, autonomy in individual choices, and their impact on a global level. Empirical research involving consumers in critical self-reflection on their values and actions can foster the understanding of common sense in the debate on animals becoming food as a starting point for outlining paths of social transformation.