Political Philosophy
A.Y. 2023/2024
Learning objectives
The main objective of the course is to promote students' understanding of key concepts in political philosophy, such as equality, liberty, justice and legitimacy. More precisely, the course aims at providing students with insights about the different accounts of similar concepts and about how to examine them and to comparatively assess their implications. The course also intends to show how the tools provided by political philosophy can contribute to the analysis of political dynamics and how similar tools can be employed to tackle controversial public questions
Expected learning outcomes
Knowledge and understanding
Students are expected to acquire in-depth knowledge concerning key concepts in political philosophy and a clear understanding about how similar concepts are interpreted by different philosophical theories. Moreover, students are expected to acquire competences apt to comparatively assess different philosophical approaches and to critically discuss their merits and limits, taking into account both their theoretical consistency and their practical import.
Applying knowledge and understanding:
Students are expected be able to apply their acquired knowledge and competences to problems central in current public debates. The course indeed offers insights about the relationship between theoretical approaches and models, on the one hand, and practical questions, on the other, by framing the philosophical theories under examination with respect to issues that animate the ongoing public discussion.
Making judgment
Student's are expected to acquire an increased propensity for autonomous judgment and strengthened critical skills. Indeed, the course provides a rich set of criteria that can be employed to assess institutions, public decisions, political behaviours or actions. The course also offers methodological insights fruitful to develop and convincingly vindicate the evaluation of political practices and arrangements.
Students are expected to acquire in-depth knowledge concerning key concepts in political philosophy and a clear understanding about how similar concepts are interpreted by different philosophical theories. Moreover, students are expected to acquire competences apt to comparatively assess different philosophical approaches and to critically discuss their merits and limits, taking into account both their theoretical consistency and their practical import.
Applying knowledge and understanding:
Students are expected be able to apply their acquired knowledge and competences to problems central in current public debates. The course indeed offers insights about the relationship between theoretical approaches and models, on the one hand, and practical questions, on the other, by framing the philosophical theories under examination with respect to issues that animate the ongoing public discussion.
Making judgment
Student's are expected to acquire an increased propensity for autonomous judgment and strengthened critical skills. Indeed, the course provides a rich set of criteria that can be employed to assess institutions, public decisions, political behaviours or actions. The course also offers methodological insights fruitful to develop and convincingly vindicate the evaluation of political practices and arrangements.
Lesson period: Second trimester
Assessment methods: Esame
Assessment result: voto verbalizzato in trentesimi
Single course
This course can be attended as a single course.
Course syllabus and organization
Single session
Responsible
Lesson period
Second trimester
Course syllabus
The course program focuses on the analysis of classical texts and authors and it aims at providing students with in-depth knowledge about key notions and problems in political philosophy, thus promoting understanding of its specific goals and methods.
In particular, the program focuses on texts by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant and it intends to illustrate the distinguishing features of modern contractualism, which are functional to grasp the normative dimension of political philosophy and to familiarize with its major questions.
The preliminary step necessary to examine the relevant texts consists in comparing the Aristotelian model with the contractualist model. Such a comparison is indeed relevant to better understand why contractualism offers a properly normative perspective on politics: it emphasizes the possibility to develop rigorous criteria for distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable institutional arrangements or between just and unjust political practices. More precisely, contractualism interprets public authority and political institutions, not as naturally given, but as the outcome of individuals' choice and of agreements among individuals. Accordingly, contractualism vindicates the meaningfulness of assessing whether current political assets are justified or should be rejected.
On this background, the program illustrates the tools contractualism provides for developing and justifying criteria apt to define which institutions should be implemented or which constraints political power should respect, thus offering useful insights to address questions connected to political obligation and legitimacy. The relevant criteria are vindicated with reference to consensus by individuals, who are intended as autonomous agents capable to identify and agree on the most appropriate solutions. Therefore, familiarity with the basic tenets of contractualism enables, on the one hand, to better understand the implications of grounding political decisions on consensus or agreement and, on the other, to investigate the conditions that make consensus and agreement appropriate references to assess and justify political choices.
The structure of the program is meant to facilitate close comparison between the approaches endorsed by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant. These authors provide different accounts of contractualism and their comparison is fruitful to identify diverse argumentative strategies for investigating political obligation or legitimacy and to gain insights about the various criteria available for assessing political regimes and their institutional arrangements.
Moreover, thanks to the comparison between Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant, the program emphasizes that the different solutions to the question of political obligation and legitimacy rely on more basic assumptions concerning human nature and rationality and are grounded on specific understandings of liberty, equality and their implications. By taking into account similar aspects, the program provide insights concerning different conceptualizations of key notions in political philosophy - such as liberty and equality - and different kinds of reason - for instance, moral and prudential - that can be employed to justify political practices and institutions.
In particular, the program focuses on texts by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant and it intends to illustrate the distinguishing features of modern contractualism, which are functional to grasp the normative dimension of political philosophy and to familiarize with its major questions.
The preliminary step necessary to examine the relevant texts consists in comparing the Aristotelian model with the contractualist model. Such a comparison is indeed relevant to better understand why contractualism offers a properly normative perspective on politics: it emphasizes the possibility to develop rigorous criteria for distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable institutional arrangements or between just and unjust political practices. More precisely, contractualism interprets public authority and political institutions, not as naturally given, but as the outcome of individuals' choice and of agreements among individuals. Accordingly, contractualism vindicates the meaningfulness of assessing whether current political assets are justified or should be rejected.
On this background, the program illustrates the tools contractualism provides for developing and justifying criteria apt to define which institutions should be implemented or which constraints political power should respect, thus offering useful insights to address questions connected to political obligation and legitimacy. The relevant criteria are vindicated with reference to consensus by individuals, who are intended as autonomous agents capable to identify and agree on the most appropriate solutions. Therefore, familiarity with the basic tenets of contractualism enables, on the one hand, to better understand the implications of grounding political decisions on consensus or agreement and, on the other, to investigate the conditions that make consensus and agreement appropriate references to assess and justify political choices.
The structure of the program is meant to facilitate close comparison between the approaches endorsed by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant. These authors provide different accounts of contractualism and their comparison is fruitful to identify diverse argumentative strategies for investigating political obligation or legitimacy and to gain insights about the various criteria available for assessing political regimes and their institutional arrangements.
Moreover, thanks to the comparison between Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant, the program emphasizes that the different solutions to the question of political obligation and legitimacy rely on more basic assumptions concerning human nature and rationality and are grounded on specific understandings of liberty, equality and their implications. By taking into account similar aspects, the program provide insights concerning different conceptualizations of key notions in political philosophy - such as liberty and equality - and different kinds of reason - for instance, moral and prudential - that can be employed to justify political practices and institutions.
Prerequisites for admission
No specific preliminary knowledge is required to fruitfully attend the course or take the exam.
Teaching methods
Lectures not only offer preliminary competences concerning the addressed topics, but they also provide appropriate time for: 1. the analysis of the relevant tests, in which students are directly involved; 2. the theoretical reconstruction of the arguments and philosophical approaches endorsed by the relevant authors, which is meant to offer insights to discuss their implications and to critically assess their adequacy; 3. the comparison between the positions defended by the selected authors, with a specific focus on how they conceive basic concept in political and philosophical language; 4. the discussion concerning questions that emerge from the analysis of the tests and authors included in the course's program, with constant references to their relevance for questions animating current debates.
On the Ariel website of the course, students will find teaching materials, including the slides used during classes. Slides will be organized so to constitute, for attending students in particular, a useful reference to keep track of the development of the program and its internal articulation, which comprise, on the one hand, the analysis of single selected authors and their arguments and, on the other, the discussion of more general topics and questions. Slides can nonetheless be helpful for non-attending students too when preparing for the exam: slide devoted to Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant provide indications to identify the most relevant aspects of their texts, and to understand the structure of their arguments.
On the Ariel website of the course, students will find teaching materials, including the slides used during classes. Slides will be organized so to constitute, for attending students in particular, a useful reference to keep track of the development of the program and its internal articulation, which comprise, on the one hand, the analysis of single selected authors and their arguments and, on the other, the discussion of more general topics and questions. Slides can nonetheless be helpful for non-attending students too when preparing for the exam: slide devoted to Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant provide indications to identify the most relevant aspects of their texts, and to understand the structure of their arguments.
Teaching Resources
The exam material is different for 1. attendaning students and 2. non-attending students
1. ATTENDING STUDENTS
To sit for the written test, students are required to prepare the following readings:
- Bobbio, N. (1976), "Il modello giusnaturalistico", in Bobbio, N. e Bovero, M., Società e stato nella filosofia politica moderna, Il Saggiatore.
- Hobbes, T. (1651), Leviatano, Laterza - Capitoli: XIII, XIV, XV, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XXI.
- Locke, J. (1690), Secondo trattato sul governo, BUR - Capitoli: II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XIII, XIV, XVIII.
- Rousseau, J.J. (1754), Discorso sull'origine della disuaglianza, Feltrinelli - Prima parte.
- Rousseau, J.J. (1762), Il contratto sociale, BUR - Libro I (intero); Libro II, capitoli: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
- Kant, I. (1784), "Risposta alla domanda: che cos'è l'illuminismo?", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s04.xhtml
- Kant, I. (1793), "Sul detto comune: questo può essere giusto in teoria, ma non vale per la pratica" - Seconda parte: "La relazione della teoria con la pratica nel diritto dello stato (contro Hobbes)", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s08.xhtml#controhobbes
- Kant, I. (1797), Metafisica dei costumi - Paragrafi: 43, 45, 46, 47.
Please note:
- the Italian editions of the texts by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant are symply suggested: to prepare for the exam, it is possible to use other editions
- readings which are difficult to find are available on the Ariel website of the course
For further insights on the topics addressed during the course, here is a list of suggested readings:
- Matteucci, N. (1983), "Contrattualismo", in Bobbio, N., Matteucci, N. e Pasquino, G. (a cura di), Dizionario di politica, Torino: UTET.
- Friend, C., "Social contract theory", Internet Enclyclopedia of Philosophy: https://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
- Besussi, A. (2012), "Neocontrattualismo e teorie della giustizia", in L. Cedroni e M. Calloni (a cura di), Filosofia politica contemporanea, Milano: Le Monnier.
- Farnesi Camellone, M. (2022), "Thomas Hobbes", in Guaraldo, O. Salvatore A. e Zuolo, F. (a cura di), Manuale di filosofia politica. Dai sofisti a Hannah Arendt, Quodlibet, pp. 159-178.
- Lloyd, S.A. e Sreedhar, S. (2018), "Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy", in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
- Guaraldo, O. (2022), "John Locke", in Guaraldo, O. Salvatore A. e Zuolo, F. (a cura di), Manuale di filosofia politica. Dai sofisti a Hannah Arendt, Quodlibet, pp. 197-216.
- Mack, E. (2013), "Locke", in G. Gaus e F. D'Agostino (a cura di), Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, New York and London: Routledge.
- Cuono, M. (2022), "Jean-Jacques Rousseau", in Guaraldo, O. Salvatore A. e Zuolo, F. (a cura di), Manuale di filosofia politica. Dai sofisti a Hannah Arendt, Quodlibet, pp. 251-271.
- Bertram , C. (2018), "Jean Jacques Rousseau", in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/
- Pievatolo, M.C. (2011), "Risposta alla domanda: che cosa è l'illuminismo? - Annotazione della curatrice", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze: Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s05.xhtml
- Pievatolo, M.C. (2011), "Sul detto comune: 'questo può essere giusto in teoria, ma non vale per la pratica' - Annotazione della curatrice", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze: Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s09.xhtml
2. NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
To sit for the written test, students are required to prepare the following readings:
- Bobbio, N. (1976), "Il modello giusnaturalistico", in Bobbio, N. e Bovero, M., Società e stato nella filosofia politica moderna, Milano: Il Saggiatore.
- Farnesi Camellone, M. (2022), "Thomas Hobbes", in Guaraldo, O. Salvatore A. e Zuolo, F. (a cura di), Manuale di filosofia politica. Dai sofisti a Hannah Arendt, Quodlibet, pp. 159-178.
- Hobbes, T. (1651), Leviatano, Laterza - Capitoli: XIII, XIV, XV, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XXI.
- Guaraldo, O. (2022), "John Locke", in in Guaraldo, O. Salvatore A. e Zuolo, F. (a cura di), Manuale di filosofia politica. Dai sofisti a Hannah Arendt, Quodlibet, pp. 197-216.
- Locke, J. (1690), Secondo trattato sul governo, BUR - "Introduzione. Locke e la teoria politica liberale" di Tito Magri + Capitoli: II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XIII, XIV, XVIII.
- Cuono, M. (2022), "Jean-Jacques Rousseau", in Guaraldo, O. Salvatore A. e Zuolo, F. (a cura di), Manuale di filosofia politica. Dai sofisti a Hannah Arendt, Quodlibet, pp. 251-271.
- Pasquali, F. (2022), "Immanuel Kant", in Guaraldo, O. Salvatore A. e Zuolo, F. (a cura di), Manuale di filosofia politica. Dai sofisti a Hannah Arendt, Quodlibet, pp. 317-334.
- Rousseau, J.J. (1754), Discorso sull'origine della disuaglianza, Feltrinelli - Prima parte.
- Kant, I. (1784), "Risposta alla domanda: che cos'è l'illuminismo?", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s04.xhtml
- Pievatolo, M.C. (2011), "Risposta alla domanda: che cosa è l'illuminismo? - Annotazione della curatrice", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s05.xhtml
- Kant, I. (1793), "Sul detto comune: questo può essere giusto in teoria, ma non vale per la pratica", Seconda parte: "La relazione della teoria con la pratica nel diritto dello stato (contro Hobbes)", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s08.xhtml#controhobbes
- Pievatolo, M.C. (2011), "Sul detto comune: 'questo può essere giusto in teoria, ma non vale per la pratica' - Annotazione della curatrice", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze: Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s09.xhtml
Please note:
- the Italian editions of the texts by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant are symply suggested: to prepare for the exam, it is possible to use other editions
- readings which are difficult to find are available on the Ariel website of the course
- it is advisable to address the readings included in the exam program following the proposed order. In particular, to adequately prepare for the exam, it is useful to acquire, through the reading and study of Bobbio's essay, familiarity with contractualism, its specificity compared to the Aristotelian approach and with its distinctive elements, which are differently articulated by the selected authors. Indeed, based on this preliminary knowledge, it is easier to study the texts by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant. For each of these authors, the program includes essays that outline the fundamental features of their theoretical projects, their approach and their positions. It is advisable to prepare those essays before addressing the texts by the authors. For Kant, there are also additional accompanying readings, useful to better understand Kant's texts included in the exam program.
1. ATTENDING STUDENTS
To sit for the written test, students are required to prepare the following readings:
- Bobbio, N. (1976), "Il modello giusnaturalistico", in Bobbio, N. e Bovero, M., Società e stato nella filosofia politica moderna, Il Saggiatore.
- Hobbes, T. (1651), Leviatano, Laterza - Capitoli: XIII, XIV, XV, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XXI.
- Locke, J. (1690), Secondo trattato sul governo, BUR - Capitoli: II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XIII, XIV, XVIII.
- Rousseau, J.J. (1754), Discorso sull'origine della disuaglianza, Feltrinelli - Prima parte.
- Rousseau, J.J. (1762), Il contratto sociale, BUR - Libro I (intero); Libro II, capitoli: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
- Kant, I. (1784), "Risposta alla domanda: che cos'è l'illuminismo?", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s04.xhtml
- Kant, I. (1793), "Sul detto comune: questo può essere giusto in teoria, ma non vale per la pratica" - Seconda parte: "La relazione della teoria con la pratica nel diritto dello stato (contro Hobbes)", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s08.xhtml#controhobbes
- Kant, I. (1797), Metafisica dei costumi - Paragrafi: 43, 45, 46, 47.
Please note:
- the Italian editions of the texts by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant are symply suggested: to prepare for the exam, it is possible to use other editions
- readings which are difficult to find are available on the Ariel website of the course
For further insights on the topics addressed during the course, here is a list of suggested readings:
- Matteucci, N. (1983), "Contrattualismo", in Bobbio, N., Matteucci, N. e Pasquino, G. (a cura di), Dizionario di politica, Torino: UTET.
- Friend, C., "Social contract theory", Internet Enclyclopedia of Philosophy: https://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
- Besussi, A. (2012), "Neocontrattualismo e teorie della giustizia", in L. Cedroni e M. Calloni (a cura di), Filosofia politica contemporanea, Milano: Le Monnier.
- Farnesi Camellone, M. (2022), "Thomas Hobbes", in Guaraldo, O. Salvatore A. e Zuolo, F. (a cura di), Manuale di filosofia politica. Dai sofisti a Hannah Arendt, Quodlibet, pp. 159-178.
- Lloyd, S.A. e Sreedhar, S. (2018), "Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy", in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
- Guaraldo, O. (2022), "John Locke", in Guaraldo, O. Salvatore A. e Zuolo, F. (a cura di), Manuale di filosofia politica. Dai sofisti a Hannah Arendt, Quodlibet, pp. 197-216.
- Mack, E. (2013), "Locke", in G. Gaus e F. D'Agostino (a cura di), Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, New York and London: Routledge.
- Cuono, M. (2022), "Jean-Jacques Rousseau", in Guaraldo, O. Salvatore A. e Zuolo, F. (a cura di), Manuale di filosofia politica. Dai sofisti a Hannah Arendt, Quodlibet, pp. 251-271.
- Bertram , C. (2018), "Jean Jacques Rousseau", in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/
- Pievatolo, M.C. (2011), "Risposta alla domanda: che cosa è l'illuminismo? - Annotazione della curatrice", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze: Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s05.xhtml
- Pievatolo, M.C. (2011), "Sul detto comune: 'questo può essere giusto in teoria, ma non vale per la pratica' - Annotazione della curatrice", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze: Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s09.xhtml
2. NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
To sit for the written test, students are required to prepare the following readings:
- Bobbio, N. (1976), "Il modello giusnaturalistico", in Bobbio, N. e Bovero, M., Società e stato nella filosofia politica moderna, Milano: Il Saggiatore.
- Farnesi Camellone, M. (2022), "Thomas Hobbes", in Guaraldo, O. Salvatore A. e Zuolo, F. (a cura di), Manuale di filosofia politica. Dai sofisti a Hannah Arendt, Quodlibet, pp. 159-178.
- Hobbes, T. (1651), Leviatano, Laterza - Capitoli: XIII, XIV, XV, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XXI.
- Guaraldo, O. (2022), "John Locke", in in Guaraldo, O. Salvatore A. e Zuolo, F. (a cura di), Manuale di filosofia politica. Dai sofisti a Hannah Arendt, Quodlibet, pp. 197-216.
- Locke, J. (1690), Secondo trattato sul governo, BUR - "Introduzione. Locke e la teoria politica liberale" di Tito Magri + Capitoli: II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XIII, XIV, XVIII.
- Cuono, M. (2022), "Jean-Jacques Rousseau", in Guaraldo, O. Salvatore A. e Zuolo, F. (a cura di), Manuale di filosofia politica. Dai sofisti a Hannah Arendt, Quodlibet, pp. 251-271.
- Pasquali, F. (2022), "Immanuel Kant", in Guaraldo, O. Salvatore A. e Zuolo, F. (a cura di), Manuale di filosofia politica. Dai sofisti a Hannah Arendt, Quodlibet, pp. 317-334.
- Rousseau, J.J. (1754), Discorso sull'origine della disuaglianza, Feltrinelli - Prima parte.
- Kant, I. (1784), "Risposta alla domanda: che cos'è l'illuminismo?", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s04.xhtml
- Pievatolo, M.C. (2011), "Risposta alla domanda: che cosa è l'illuminismo? - Annotazione della curatrice", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s05.xhtml
- Kant, I. (1793), "Sul detto comune: questo può essere giusto in teoria, ma non vale per la pratica", Seconda parte: "La relazione della teoria con la pratica nel diritto dello stato (contro Hobbes)", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s08.xhtml#controhobbes
- Pievatolo, M.C. (2011), "Sul detto comune: 'questo può essere giusto in teoria, ma non vale per la pratica' - Annotazione della curatrice", in M.C. Pievatolo (a cura di), Immanuel Kant: Sette scritti politici liberi, Firenze: Firenze University Press: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s09.xhtml
Please note:
- the Italian editions of the texts by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant are symply suggested: to prepare for the exam, it is possible to use other editions
- readings which are difficult to find are available on the Ariel website of the course
- it is advisable to address the readings included in the exam program following the proposed order. In particular, to adequately prepare for the exam, it is useful to acquire, through the reading and study of Bobbio's essay, familiarity with contractualism, its specificity compared to the Aristotelian approach and with its distinctive elements, which are differently articulated by the selected authors. Indeed, based on this preliminary knowledge, it is easier to study the texts by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant. For each of these authors, the program includes essays that outline the fundamental features of their theoretical projects, their approach and their positions. It is advisable to prepare those essays before addressing the texts by the authors. For Kant, there are also additional accompanying readings, useful to better understand Kant's texts included in the exam program.
Assessment methods and Criteria
The exam structure is different for 1. attending students and 2. non-attending students.
1. ATTENDING STUDENTS
For non-attending students, the exam consists in one single written test, which will be heldshortly after the end of the course, during an exam session reserved to attending students. Please note: There will be only one session dedicated to the exam program for attending students: students who do not sit for the written test on the occasion of such session will have to take the exam on the program for non-attending students.
The written test is organized into two part. The first part comprises multiple choice questions, which are meant to verify, on the one hand, the knowledge and understanding of the readings included in the exam program and of the topics addressed during classes and discussions and, on the other hand, the capacity to apply the acquired knowledge to specific cases and scenarions. The secont part comprises open questions, which are aimed at ascertaining the students' capacity to appropriately frame their acquired knowledge in order to answer pertinently to specific questions and their capacity to summarize their knowledge in a punctual way and without digressions. Moreover, open questions are aimed at verifying the students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the various topics addressed in the exam materials, to grasp the implications of the relevant arguments and to assess, also in a comparative way, the adequacy of the different philosophical approaches illustrated in the reading assignments and discussed during classes.
The two parts of the test are assessed separately, and the test is considered passed only if both of its two parts are completed sucessfully. The written tests will be marked with grades out of thirty, determined by the weighted mean between the grade attributed to the first part of the test (40%) and the grade assigned to the second part (60%). The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the overall evaluation of the written test test, 30 cum laude is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
EVALUATION OF THE FIRST PART: MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
In the evaluating of answers to questions that require to select from predefined options:
- if there is only one option that qualifies as correct, a pre-established score is obtained by selecting such option and a score equal to 0 is obtaned by selecting any of the other incorrect options;
- if there are multiple acceptable options, each acceptable answer, based on its degree of adequacy, is preliminarily associated with a specific score (different from 0) while the unacceptable options - if there is any - are associated with a score equal to 0; for questions structured in this way, the obtained score is equal to the one associated with the selected option;
- in case of missing answers, a score equal to 0 is obtained.
The overall grade for the first part of the written test is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each answer, a sum which will be eventually converted into a grade out of thirty based on pre-established rules.
EVALUATION OF THE SECOND PART: OPEN QUESTIONS
Answers to open questions are evaluated individually based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of their content and considering their expository clarity, their level of detail and the coherence and relevance of the proposed arguments.
More specifically, grades (out of thirty) are attribute as follows:
- between 10 and 14 to non-pertinent answers (missing answers are treated as non-pertinent, and they are automatically assigned 10/30);
- between 14 and 17 to incomplete answers;
- between 12 and 17 to pertinent and complete but incorrect answers;
- between 18 and 23 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing serious inaccuracies and/or excessive irrelevant remarks or resulting unclear, not detailed, not contextualized or not supported by arguments;
- between 24 and 26 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing only minor inaccuracies and/or few irrelevant remarks or resulting partially unclear, not appropriately detailed, not adequately contextualized or not supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 27 and 28 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks and resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized and supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 29 and 30 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and including some original insights;
- 30 cum laude to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and showing the capacity to rework and articulate acquired notions and knowledge in a rigorous and original way.
The overall grade the second part of the written test is determined by the mean between the grades attributed to each answer. The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the evaluation of this part of the test, 30 cum laude is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
2. NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
For non-attending students, the exam consists in a single written test.
The written test comprises open questions, which are meant to verify, on the one hand, the knowledge and understanding of the readings included in the exam program and, on the other hand, the students' capacity to appropriately frame their acquired knowledge in order to answer pertinently to specific questions and their capacity to summarize their knowledge in a punctual way and without digressions. Moreover, the test is aimed at verifying the students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the various topics addressed in the exam materials, to grasp the implications of the relevant arguments and to assess, also in a comparative way, the adequacy of the different philosophical approaches illustrated in the reading assignments.
Answers are evaluated individually based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of their content and considering their expository clarity, their level of detail and the coherence and relevance of the proposed arguments.
More specifically, grades (out of thirty) are attribute as follows:
- between 10 and 14 to non-pertinent answers (missing answers are treated as non-pertinent, and they are automatically assigned 10/30);
- between 14 and 17 to incomplete answers;
- between 12 and 17 to pertinent and complete but incorrect answers;
- between 18 and 23 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing serious inaccuracies and/or excessive irrelevant remarks or resulting unclear, not detailed, not contextualized or not supported by arguments;
- between 24 and 26 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing only minor inaccuracies and/or few irrelevant remarks or resulting partially unclear, not appropriately detailed, not adequately contextualized or not supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 27 and 28 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks and resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized and supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 29 and 30 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and including some original insights;
- 30 cum laude to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and showing the capacity to rework and articulate acquired notions and knowledge in a rigorous and original way.
The final grade for the written test is determined by the mean between the grades attributed to the each answer. The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the overall evaluation, 30 cum laude is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
1. ATTENDING STUDENTS
For non-attending students, the exam consists in one single written test, which will be heldshortly after the end of the course, during an exam session reserved to attending students. Please note: There will be only one session dedicated to the exam program for attending students: students who do not sit for the written test on the occasion of such session will have to take the exam on the program for non-attending students.
The written test is organized into two part. The first part comprises multiple choice questions, which are meant to verify, on the one hand, the knowledge and understanding of the readings included in the exam program and of the topics addressed during classes and discussions and, on the other hand, the capacity to apply the acquired knowledge to specific cases and scenarions. The secont part comprises open questions, which are aimed at ascertaining the students' capacity to appropriately frame their acquired knowledge in order to answer pertinently to specific questions and their capacity to summarize their knowledge in a punctual way and without digressions. Moreover, open questions are aimed at verifying the students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the various topics addressed in the exam materials, to grasp the implications of the relevant arguments and to assess, also in a comparative way, the adequacy of the different philosophical approaches illustrated in the reading assignments and discussed during classes.
The two parts of the test are assessed separately, and the test is considered passed only if both of its two parts are completed sucessfully. The written tests will be marked with grades out of thirty, determined by the weighted mean between the grade attributed to the first part of the test (40%) and the grade assigned to the second part (60%). The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the overall evaluation of the written test test, 30 cum laude is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
EVALUATION OF THE FIRST PART: MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
In the evaluating of answers to questions that require to select from predefined options:
- if there is only one option that qualifies as correct, a pre-established score is obtained by selecting such option and a score equal to 0 is obtaned by selecting any of the other incorrect options;
- if there are multiple acceptable options, each acceptable answer, based on its degree of adequacy, is preliminarily associated with a specific score (different from 0) while the unacceptable options - if there is any - are associated with a score equal to 0; for questions structured in this way, the obtained score is equal to the one associated with the selected option;
- in case of missing answers, a score equal to 0 is obtained.
The overall grade for the first part of the written test is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each answer, a sum which will be eventually converted into a grade out of thirty based on pre-established rules.
EVALUATION OF THE SECOND PART: OPEN QUESTIONS
Answers to open questions are evaluated individually based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of their content and considering their expository clarity, their level of detail and the coherence and relevance of the proposed arguments.
More specifically, grades (out of thirty) are attribute as follows:
- between 10 and 14 to non-pertinent answers (missing answers are treated as non-pertinent, and they are automatically assigned 10/30);
- between 14 and 17 to incomplete answers;
- between 12 and 17 to pertinent and complete but incorrect answers;
- between 18 and 23 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing serious inaccuracies and/or excessive irrelevant remarks or resulting unclear, not detailed, not contextualized or not supported by arguments;
- between 24 and 26 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing only minor inaccuracies and/or few irrelevant remarks or resulting partially unclear, not appropriately detailed, not adequately contextualized or not supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 27 and 28 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks and resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized and supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 29 and 30 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and including some original insights;
- 30 cum laude to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and showing the capacity to rework and articulate acquired notions and knowledge in a rigorous and original way.
The overall grade the second part of the written test is determined by the mean between the grades attributed to each answer. The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the evaluation of this part of the test, 30 cum laude is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
2. NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
For non-attending students, the exam consists in a single written test.
The written test comprises open questions, which are meant to verify, on the one hand, the knowledge and understanding of the readings included in the exam program and, on the other hand, the students' capacity to appropriately frame their acquired knowledge in order to answer pertinently to specific questions and their capacity to summarize their knowledge in a punctual way and without digressions. Moreover, the test is aimed at verifying the students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the various topics addressed in the exam materials, to grasp the implications of the relevant arguments and to assess, also in a comparative way, the adequacy of the different philosophical approaches illustrated in the reading assignments.
Answers are evaluated individually based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of their content and considering their expository clarity, their level of detail and the coherence and relevance of the proposed arguments.
More specifically, grades (out of thirty) are attribute as follows:
- between 10 and 14 to non-pertinent answers (missing answers are treated as non-pertinent, and they are automatically assigned 10/30);
- between 14 and 17 to incomplete answers;
- between 12 and 17 to pertinent and complete but incorrect answers;
- between 18 and 23 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing serious inaccuracies and/or excessive irrelevant remarks or resulting unclear, not detailed, not contextualized or not supported by arguments;
- between 24 and 26 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing only minor inaccuracies and/or few irrelevant remarks or resulting partially unclear, not appropriately detailed, not adequately contextualized or not supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 27 and 28 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks and resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized and supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 29 and 30 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and including some original insights;
- 30 cum laude to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and showing the capacity to rework and articulate acquired notions and knowledge in a rigorous and original way.
The final grade for the written test is determined by the mean between the grades attributed to the each answer. The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the overall evaluation, 30 cum laude is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
SPS/01 - POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY - University credits: 6
Lessons: 40 hours
Professor:
Pasquali Francesca
Educational website(s)
Professor(s)
Reception:
Upcoming office hours: Thursday May 2nd, 14:00-17:00, online; Monday May 6th, 14:30-16:00, on campus; Monday Apri 6th, 16:30-18:00, online
No appointment required to attend office hours, which are held online (on MS Teams: https://msteams.link/5MTK) or on campus (Dept. of Social and political science, 2nd floor, room 205). For info about theses, check the following link: