Lo spazio logico delle istituzioni: ordine normativo, raison d’être ed etica d’ufficio

P. Pedrini
{"title":"Lo spazio logico delle istituzioni: ordine normativo, raison d’être ed etica d’ufficio","authors":"P. Pedrini","doi":"10.36253/rifp-2274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this contribution I offer an analysis of some specific theses defended by Ceva and Ferretti (2021). First, I raise a question related to the theoretical work done by the sabotage of an institution’s raison d’être when both describing and morally evaluating political corruption. In particular, I will ask whether the ultimate moral reason why corruption is a moral wrong rests on the sabotage of the raison d’être that it entails and to which it could be con-substantially tied. Relatedly, I will explore whether the sabotage of an institution’s raison d’être can be described without that particular cause-effect relationship which is the relationship between action and its consequences, and if the relation holds, whether we can still guarantee the constitutivist account of the moral agent that the authors favor. The second question I pose concerns the deficit of “office accountability” which according to the authors would be at the heart of the moral wrong of which political corruption consists. I will wonder whether this deficit is sufficient to capture political corruption, although it is certainly a necessary manifestation of it. Finally, I will argue that in order to grasp the phenomenon of political corruption not only should we look at intra-institutional relations, but also at the inter-institutional ones. A succinct appendix on the common sense semantics of the adjective “corrupt” completes my commentary.","PeriodicalId":151072,"journal":{"name":"Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Politica","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Politica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36253/rifp-2274","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this contribution I offer an analysis of some specific theses defended by Ceva and Ferretti (2021). First, I raise a question related to the theoretical work done by the sabotage of an institution’s raison d’être when both describing and morally evaluating political corruption. In particular, I will ask whether the ultimate moral reason why corruption is a moral wrong rests on the sabotage of the raison d’être that it entails and to which it could be con-substantially tied. Relatedly, I will explore whether the sabotage of an institution’s raison d’être can be described without that particular cause-effect relationship which is the relationship between action and its consequences, and if the relation holds, whether we can still guarantee the constitutivist account of the moral agent that the authors favor. The second question I pose concerns the deficit of “office accountability” which according to the authors would be at the heart of the moral wrong of which political corruption consists. I will wonder whether this deficit is sufficient to capture political corruption, although it is certainly a necessary manifestation of it. Finally, I will argue that in order to grasp the phenomenon of political corruption not only should we look at intra-institutional relations, but also at the inter-institutional ones. A succinct appendix on the common sense semantics of the adjective “corrupt” completes my commentary.
机构:监管秩序的合理空间,ê三个办公室和道德的理由
在这篇文章中,我对Ceva和Ferretti(2021)辩护的一些具体论文进行了分析。首先,我提出了一个与在描述和道德评价政治腐败时破坏一个机构的理由être所做的理论工作有关的问题。特别是,我将提出这样一个问题:腐败之所以是一种道德错误,其最终的道德原因是否在于破坏了腐败所需要的être的理由,以及腐败可能与之非实质性地联系在一起的理由。与此相关,我将探讨是否可以在没有特定的因果关系(即行为与其后果之间的关系)的情况下描述对制度的理由être的破坏,如果这种关系成立,我们是否仍然可以保证作者所支持的道德行为者的构成主义解释。我提出的第二个问题涉及“政府问责制”的缺失,根据两位作者的说法,这将是政治腐败所构成的道德错误的核心。我想知道,这种赤字是否足以捕捉政治腐败,尽管它肯定是政治腐败的一种必要表现。最后,我将论证,为了把握政治腐败现象,我们不仅应该关注制度内关系,还应该关注制度间关系。关于形容词“腐败”的常识性语义的简短附录完成了我的评论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信