Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics (2024) XXVI/1

In the present work we propose a partial application of the Belmont Report to animal research, based on a meaning of beneficence according to which the right to life must be guaranteed to animals undergoing experimentation, even once this has ended. We will also analyze what role captivity can play in animal research, referring in particular to the involvement of non-human primates.

In this essay, I analyze the normative problems that Honneth, in his latest book Der arbeitende Souverän, identifies in today’s sphere of work. After outlining and highlighting the positive elements of Honneth’s conception (1), I draw attention to what I consider an excess of formality in the way he enunciates the objectives of his normative theory of work, as well as to the indeterminacy of the interventions needed to pursue these objectives (2). Then, I consider the diagnosis that Honneth draws about the state of protests and social struggles in the current sphere of labor (3): it is here, in my view, that we can discern the origin of the problems encountered; I therefore advance the hypothesis that a different interpretation about the current state of social protests would allow the formulation of more determinate normative measures.

The collection of essays The time of secularization, published in 1970, highlights the far sightedness of its author, the Italian Catholic philosopher Augusto del Noce. A philosopher of uncommon analytical depth, Augusto del Noce had foreseen half a century in advance not only the future of Catholicism in a secularized society – avoiding calling it “secularist” – but also a theory of human, political and social changes, which are particularly evident today. This essay aims to explore and summarize some crucial aspects of Del Noce’s work, which seem to mirror contemporary times: the separation between traditionalists and progressives, the effects of a kind of “new” enlightenment; the celebration of apathetic Nihilism.

Theorists of transitional justice regard official apologies as one major instrument for countries to take responsibility for historical wrongs. One such wrong is the slavery past of western countries, for which Afro-descendant activists have requested official apologies yet countries have been reluctant to apologize officially. Should there be official national apologies for past slavery? One prominent philosopher who has criticized others’ pro-arguments yet has defended an affirmative answer, notably in the U.S. slavery past case, is Janna Thompson (2020). This article takes a critical stance towards contemporary slavery apologies, through an analysis of various moral arguments against apologizing for slavery as well as Thompson’s defenses of it, with illustrations from the Dutch and U.S. slavery past cases. It will present four reasons for why post-slavery governments cannot properly apologize for their nations’ slavery past, and three reasons for why descendants of enslaved people cannot properly be recipients of slavery apologies. Essentially, contemporary official slavery apologies are questionable due to a morally unbridgeable gap between contemporary post-slavery society and the slavery past itself. Thus, this article suggests that restorative transitional justice may only work within a historically restricted timeframe.

This paper explores the implications of cognitive disability on deliberative democracy and proposes possible solutions to ensure that people with cognitive disabilities participate meaningfully in democratic decision making. Although deliberative democracy is considered a cognitive process, people with cognitive disabilities may lack the capacity to participate. The paper explores a joint-effort model of deliberation that includes people with cognitive disabilities as equal participants, using bodily communication as a source of information. However, we argue that it is too ambitious to include individuals with severe cognitive impairments who are unable to fully understand their position, critically analyze others' perspectives, and modify their opinions based on the epistemic contributions of other members. Therefore, we propose a model that recognizes the epistemic significance of individuals who do not meet the criteria for deliberators but can contribute as a useful source of information. The proposed model avoids epistemic and political injustices during deliberative processes and advocates proceduralist justification of deliberated outcomes. The paper highlights the need for inclusive deliberative processes that recognize the contributions of individuals with cognitive disabilities.