2022/2023

2022/2023

DM270

SPS/01 (POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY)

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC POLICIES

PERCORSO COMUNE

1°

2nd semester (27/02/2023 - 31/05/2023)

6

40 lesson hours

Italian

WRITTEN AND ORAL TEST

LIVERIERO FEDERICA (titolare) - 6 ECTS

There are no formal requirements for embarking on this course. However, students will find useful a prior acquaintance with the forms of power and the differences between types of political regime, with the basic concepts of political economy, and a familiarity with contemporary debated cases of public ethics within the context of liberal democracies.

The first part of the course (lectures) aims to introduce students to the normative analysis of public policies through the presentation of some of the main methodological (deontology and consequentialism) and theoretical (liberalism and neo-republicanism) approaches to public ethics, with a special focus on the question of what duties individuals have in a collective setting and what is the source of justification for mutual duties. Once this background framework has been properly introduced, the course will debate whether and how free and autonomous individuals can peacefully coexist in contexts of strong pluralism. This analysis will involve an in-depth analysis of some essential concepts in the contemporary debate on public ethics, such as equal respect, tolerance, multiculturalism and the investigation of what appropriate processes for the management of public conflicts are available (and justifiable) in democratic settings. This part of the course is mainly structured in face-to-face lectures aimed at familiarizing students with the normative analysis of issues relevant to the public ethics discourse.
The second part of the course (6 seminar meetings and 2 formal debates) aims to develop students' skills of analysis and critical discussion through the application of the methodological and theoretical framework introduced during the first part of the course to discuss in class some relevant topics in the public ethics discourse. Seminars will address, among others, issues such as the study of political corruption as a problem of public ethics; the topic of moral integrity in relation to the definition of conscientious objection requests as a form of political participation; the political and symbolic role played by acts of civil disobedience; the role played by political compromises to achieve both stability and adequate conflict-management; the public ethics debate over hate speech and its consequences for democratic stability; how to recognize and address structural forms of social injustice rooted in contemporary democracies and the emancipatory role that social anger and political activism can play within these structurally unjust contexts.

Among the many topics that will be addressed in the course, we can highlight these theoretical questions:
- What are the normative sources of political duties?
- Which procedures are most adequate to reach stable political agreements in contexts of entrenched pluralism?
- What are the theoretical and practical sources of disagreement among individuals?
- What is the normative role - if any - played by the virtue of tolerance and by the principle of equal respect in contemporary multicultural societies?
- On what normative concepts does the legitimacy of liberal democracies rest?
- Are political choices via compromise justifiable? Can we distinguish between virtuous and vicious forms of political compromise?
- Are there genuine political dilemmas? And if so, how can we address them in democratic contexts?
- What -if any - is the harm of hate speech?
- How can we distinguish legitimate requests for conscientious objection from acts of civil disobedience?
- Is civil disobedience ever justifiable?
- Does political activism play a relevant democratic role?
- Are there structural forms of social and political injustice? And if so, what remedies and institutional reforms shall we employ to counter these forms of injustice?
- What kind of political evil is involved in corruption?
- What are the duties of public institutions in combating corruption? Is it sufficient to impose restrictive rules and tighten sanctions for violations of such rules?


COURSE PROGRAM

LECTURE 1: Introduction to the course
LECTURE 2: The deontological and consequentialist approaches to public ethics: a confrontation
LECTURE 3: The deontological approach to public ethics (1): the principle of equal respect
LECTURE 4: The deontological approach to public ethics (2): the virtue of toleration
LECTURE 5: Normative theories of public ethics (1): liberalism
LECTURE 6: Normative theories of public ethics (2): neo-republicanism
LECTURE 7: Normative democratic theory and the notion of political equality
LECTURE 8: The circumstances of justice: pluralism and evaluative conflicts in practice
LECTURE 9: Dealing with conflicts in pluralist societies (1): multiculturalism
LECTURE 10: Dealing with conflicts in pluralist societies (2): public justification and political compromises
LECTURE 11: Dealing with conflicts in pluralist societies (2): conscientious objection and civil disobedience
LECTURE 12: Corruption: a public ethics concern

SEMINAR 1: The political relevance of corruption
• Ceva, Emanuela e Michele Bocchiola, “L’approccio dell’etica pubblica allo studio della corruzione politica. Un’analisi normativa”, in P. Previtali, R. Procaccini, A. Zatti (a cura di), Trasparenza e anticorruzione tra enforcement e risk management, Pavia University Press, Pavia, 2017.

SEMINAR 2: Normative concepts in tension: redistribution or recognition?
• Testino, Chiara, “Redistribuzione o riconoscimento”, in E. Biale, V. Ottonelli e C. Testino, Dilemmi politici, De Ferrari Editore, Genova, 2010, cap. 2, pp. 47-68.

SEMINAR 3: Hate speech and the harm principle
• Riva, Nicola, (2019), “Il principio del danno e le espressioni d’avversione o d’odio”, Biblioteca della libertà, 224, pp. 19-38.

SEMINAR 4: Contemporary democratic theory, social criticism and the role of activism
• Young, I. M. (2001) “Activist challenges to deliberative democracy”, Political theory, 29(5), pp. 670-690.

SEMINAR 5: Social justice and (un)civil forms of disobedience
• E. Ceva, “L’obiezione di coscienza contra legem come una rivendicazione di rispetto”, Notizie di Politeia, 27, 2011: 113-117.
• R. Celikates, R. (2019), “Constituent power beyond exceptionalism: Irregular migration, disobedience, and (re-)constitution”, Journal of International Political Theory, 15(1), pp.67-81.

SEMINAR 6: How to deal with structural forms of injustice: the political role of rage
• Hooker, J. (2016), “Black Lives Matter and the paradoxes of US Black politics: From democratic sacrifice to democratic repair”, Political Theory, 44(4), pp. 448-469.

SEMINAR 7: Formal debate

SEMINAR 8: Formal debate

The 40-hours course includes a first part of frontal lectures in which the main topics of the course will be introduced and illustrated. The second part of the course (6 seminars and 2 formal debates) aims to develop students' skills of analysis and critical discussion through the application of the methodological and theoretical framework developed during the first part to discuss in class relevant matters for the contemporary public ethics discourse.
Course attendance is not mandatory, but highly recommended. Further didactic material will be provided during the lessons to the students. The attendance and active participation in the seminar classes would provide students with the possibility of discussing philosophical themes in a nonconfrontational environment. Active participation in the seminars can impact the final result up to 20%.

The exam will be based on a set of texts (articles and book chapters). These texts (in their Italian versions) are collected together as photocopies and can be purchased from the CLU bookshop in Via San Fermo, Pavia. Ask for: “Dispensa di Etica Pubblica, anno accademico 2021/22”.

Non-italian exchange students may request an alternative list of equivalent English-language readings.

The texts are divided into two groups: a first group of introductory readings, and a second group of texts that will be discussed during seminar meetings. You are expected to read all the texts "seminar readings” before each of the relevant seminars. You are encouraged to adopt a critical approach to these readings, and are expected to come to each of the seminar discussions prepared with critical points.

Introductory Readings:
1. Ceva, Emanuela, Giustizia e conflitti di valori, Bruno Mondadori, Milano, 2008, cap. 1 e 2, pp. 15-52.
2. Darwall, Stephen, “Due tipi di rispetto come riconoscimento per le persone”, in I. Carter, A.E. Galeotti, V. Ottonelli (a cura di), Eguale rispetto, Bruno Mondadori, Milano, 2008, pp. 1-23.
3. Destri, Chiara, “Una giustificazione prudenziale della democrazia”, Working papers series del Laboratorio di Politica Comparata e Filosofia Pubblica, n.5, 2017, pp. 3-33.
4. Galeotti, Elisabetta, La tolleranza. Una proposta pluralista, Liguori, Napoli, 1994, cap. 4, pp. 141-171.
5. Galeotti, Elisabetta, “Per un multiculturalismo praticabile”, Quaderni di BDL, 1/2019, pp. 33-45.
6. Liveriero, Federica, Decisioni pubbliche e disaccordo, LUISS University Press, Roma, 2017, pp. 187-205.
7. Maffettone, Sebastiano, Politica, Le monnier, Firenze, 2019, cap. 3 “Repubblicanesimo”, pp. 125-250.
8. Pellegrino, Gianfranco, Etica pubblica. Una piccola introduzione, LUISS University Press, Roma, 2015, cap. 3, pp. 95-123.
9. Veca, Salvatore, La filosofia politica, Laterza & Figli, Roma-Bari, 1998, cap. 1, pp. 3-32.

Seminars Readings:
1. Celikates, Robin, (2019), “Constituent power beyond exceptionalism: Irregular migration, disobedience, and (re-)constitution”, Journal of International Political Theory, 15(1), pp.67-81.
2. Ceva, Emanuela, (2011), “L’obiezione di coscienza contra legem come una rivendicazione di rispetto”, Notizie di Politeia, 27, pp. 113-117.
3. Ceva, Emanuela e Michele Bocchiola, (2017), “L’approccio dell’etica pubblica allo studio della corruzione politica. Un’analisi normativa”, in P. Previtali, R. Procaccini, A. Zatti (a cura di), Trasparenza e anticorruzione tra enforcement e risk management, Pavia University Press, Pavia, pp. 5-20.
4. Hooker, Juliet, (2016), “Black Lives Matter and the paradoxes of US Black politics: From democratic sacrifice to democratic repair”, Political Theory, 44(4), pp. 448-469.
5. Riva, Nicola, (2019), “Il principio del danno e le espressioni d’avversione o d’odio”, Biblioteca della libertà, 224, pp. 19-38.
6. Testino, Chiara, (2010), “Redistribuzione o riconoscimento”, in E. Biale, V. Ottonelli e C. Testino, Dilemmi politici, De Ferrari Editore, Genova, cap. 2, pp. 47-68.
7. Young, Iris Marion (2001) “Activist challenges to deliberative democracy”, Political theory, 29(5), pp. 670-690.

Assessment will be based on participation, an assessed essay, and an oral exam.
The final mark will be calculated as follows:
Participation, 20%%
Assessed Essay, 60%
Oral exam, 20%
Participation: The mark for participation will depend above all on the quality of your participation in the seminars – including, in case it applies, your active participation as a debater in one of the seminars.
Assessed essay: The essay should address a clear research question and must be no more than 4,000 (four thousand) words long. You might decide autonomously on which topic-research question you want to focus your essay. However, the topic of the essay must be agreed upon in advance with the course teacher. Essays addressing questions that were not agreed upon beforehand with the course teacher will not be accepted. Instructions on how to write the essay will be provided at the beginning of the course.
Essays will be subject to the usual rules on plagiarism, and will be scanned using the relevant software. Essays will be assessed in terms of their clarity, structure, and argumentative rigor, in terms of their sensitivity to the relevant ethical and philosophical issues, and, ultimately, in terms of
the efficacy with which they answer the chosen research question.
Essays should be submitted to the course teacher, Federica Liveriero, by email, at least one week before the chosen exam date.
Oral exam: The oral examination will consist of a short discussion of the paper submitted by the student and of some questions concerning other topics of the course. Performance in the oral exam will be assessed in terms of students' ability to discuss and critically assess the course arguments and to make connection among them.
It will not be possible to undergo the oral examination if the short paper is not submitted in time (a week in advance of the oral exam).
In both the written and oral examinations students should prove able to master the concepts, terms and other information provided during the course, and to discuss subjects clearly, concisely and rigorously, and, above anything else, in good Italian prose. They should also show an ability to apply knowledge and understanding in communicating with non–specialists and in debating problems in an open and critical way.

Non-attender students will be evaluated on the essay (60%) and on a longer oral exam (40%).

Lead Teacher: Prof.ssa Federica Liveriero
Email: federica.liveriero@unipv.it

By investigating many public issues related to questions of justice and social reform, the public ethics course proves relevant to several Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Among them, it is worth highlighting:
- Goal 4 Quality Education: the course will shed light on the relevance of an equitable distribution of educational opportunities to develop more just, stable societies in which citizens can fully develop their life plans.
- Goal 5 Gender Equality: the course addresses many issues tangential to gender equality, such as proposing a diagnosis of structural forms of injustice; the processes through which social standards and customs are constructed; and how public recognition of differences is essential to ensuring equal visibility for all actors in the public space.
- Goal 10 Reduced Inequalities: the course will introduce and discuss social inequalities as one of the most pressing issues for public ethics.
- Goal 13 Climate Action: the course aims to discuss with students the paradoxes of collective rationality, illustrating how the issue of climate change requires a wide-ranging reflection on motivating collective action, starting from a global outlook, rather than from a state-based analysis.
- Goal 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: this course primarily investigates democratic processes for conflict management in contexts of deep disagreement. The themes of peaceful coexistence and how political institutions should be structured to ensure justice and avoid corruption are therefore an essential focus of the course.
$lbl_legenda_sviluppo_sostenibile