Public Ethics
A.Y. 2026/2027
Learning objectives
Is freedom of speech without limits? Do we have a duty to vote? What is wrong with corruption? These are just some of the varied questions posed by public ethics, to which this course offers a basic introduction. In the sense favoured by this course, public ethics focuses on the justifiability of the institutions, policies, conduct, rights and duties that concern citizens and political actors, especially in democratic contexts.
Alongside the presentation of the main theoretical and methodological approaches, the course will show how these perspectives can be applied to current dilemmas in public debate (for example democratic voting, political corruption, the problem of dirty hands, hate speech). The aim is not only to develop students' theoretical knowledge, but also to foster their critical and argumentative skills, useful both in their studies and in future professional careers.
Alongside the presentation of the main theoretical and methodological approaches, the course will show how these perspectives can be applied to current dilemmas in public debate (for example democratic voting, political corruption, the problem of dirty hands, hate speech). The aim is not only to develop students' theoretical knowledge, but also to foster their critical and argumentative skills, useful both in their studies and in future professional careers.
Expected learning outcomes
By the end of the course, students will be able to:
use the technical language of public ethics with precision;
understand and distinguish the main theoretical and methodological paradigms of the discipline (deontological vs. consequentialist approach; liberal, realist and neo-republican paradigms);
apply these skills appropriately, critically and independently to the analysis and discussion of the controversies at the centre of public debate;
form judgements and defend arguments in a considered, comprehensible and convincing manner;
manage peer collaboration independently and effectively.
use the technical language of public ethics with precision;
understand and distinguish the main theoretical and methodological paradigms of the discipline (deontological vs. consequentialist approach; liberal, realist and neo-republican paradigms);
apply these skills appropriately, critically and independently to the analysis and discussion of the controversies at the centre of public debate;
form judgements and defend arguments in a considered, comprehensible and convincing manner;
manage peer collaboration independently and effectively.
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
Part one — Conceptual and normative categories
1. The distinction normative vs. descriptive;
2. The trolley problem;
3. Deontological vs. consequentialist methodology;
4. Specific normative approaches: political realism, liberalism, neo-republicanism;
5. Perspectives on public ethics.
Part two — Application to case studies (seminar-based)
1. Political corruption;
2. The problem of dirty hands;
3. The duty to vote;
4. The tension between freedom of speech and hate speech.
The syllabus is the same for attending and non-attending students; however, the texts to be prepared differ, as do the assessment methods.
1. The distinction normative vs. descriptive;
2. The trolley problem;
3. Deontological vs. consequentialist methodology;
4. Specific normative approaches: political realism, liberalism, neo-republicanism;
5. Perspectives on public ethics.
Part two — Application to case studies (seminar-based)
1. Political corruption;
2. The problem of dirty hands;
3. The duty to vote;
4. The tension between freedom of speech and hate speech.
The syllabus is the same for attending and non-attending students; however, the texts to be prepared differ, as do the assessment methods.
Prerequisites for admission
There are no specific prerequisites other than those required for admission to the degree programme. The prerequisites are the same for attending and non-attending students.
Teaching methods
The course is divided into two parts.
Part one consists of lectures and seminars, held in person and online in synchronous mode, aimed at providing students with the conceptual and normative categories required to address political and social questions.
Part two, also delivered in person and online in synchronous mode, is entirely seminar-based and develops students' analytical and critical-argumentative skills through the application of the methodological and theoretical framework presented in part one, by means of group presentations and discussions of case studies.
Four asynchronous online sessions are also scheduled, devoted to viewing/reading materials together with mock tests to familiarise students with the structure of the final examination (materials and tests can be found on MyAriel).
Online mode: the course is classified as Beta (blended). The components delivered online are: six synchronous online sessions and four asynchronous online sessions. The choice of online mode responds, among other things, to the aim of widening accessibility and enabling independent practice with the examination format.
Attendance: attendance is not compulsory. Non-attending students take the assessment according to the dedicated arrangements, preparing additional texts for the final examination.
How do I know if I'm an attending student? If I have attended at least 60% of the in-person and synchronous online lectures, and all of the asynchronous online lectures (including the tests to complete!).
Course rules
In order to conduct discussion respectfully, students are asked to:
raise their hand to ask to speak;
remain silent when other students or the instructor are speaking;
complete the required readings before each seminar session;
adopt the principle of charity, that is, to strive to present the strongest version of the theses they intend to criticise.
Part one consists of lectures and seminars, held in person and online in synchronous mode, aimed at providing students with the conceptual and normative categories required to address political and social questions.
Part two, also delivered in person and online in synchronous mode, is entirely seminar-based and develops students' analytical and critical-argumentative skills through the application of the methodological and theoretical framework presented in part one, by means of group presentations and discussions of case studies.
Four asynchronous online sessions are also scheduled, devoted to viewing/reading materials together with mock tests to familiarise students with the structure of the final examination (materials and tests can be found on MyAriel).
Online mode: the course is classified as Beta (blended). The components delivered online are: six synchronous online sessions and four asynchronous online sessions. The choice of online mode responds, among other things, to the aim of widening accessibility and enabling independent practice with the examination format.
Attendance: attendance is not compulsory. Non-attending students take the assessment according to the dedicated arrangements, preparing additional texts for the final examination.
How do I know if I'm an attending student? If I have attended at least 60% of the in-person and synchronous online lectures, and all of the asynchronous online lectures (including the tests to complete!).
Course rules
In order to conduct discussion respectfully, students are asked to:
raise their hand to ask to speak;
remain silent when other students or the instructor are speaking;
complete the required readings before each seminar session;
adopt the principle of charity, that is, to strive to present the strongest version of the theses they intend to criticise.
Teaching Resources
Bibliography for attending students
All texts are compulsory. For further reading suggestions, students are invited to write to [email protected].
First part of the course
1. Ceva, Emanuela and Maria Paola Ferretti, Etica pubblica dell'anticorruzione, Carocci, Rome 2025.
2. Pellegrino, Gianfranco, Etica pubblica. Una piccola introduzione, LUISS University Press, Rome 2015.
3. Bobbio, Norberto, Il futuro della democrazia, Einaudi, Turin 1995 [1984], pp. 3-84.
4. Ottonelli, Valeria, I principi procedurali della democrazia, Il Mulino, Bologna 2012.
5. Lever, Annabelle and Philippe Van Parijs, "Perché andiamo a votare: prospettive a confronto", in V. Ottonelli and C. Fumagalli (eds.), Votare o no: La pratica democratica del voto, tra diritto individuale e scelta collettiva, Fondazione Gian Giacomo Feltrinelli, Milan 2022.
Second part of the course
What is wrong with corruption?
1. Ceva, Emanuela and Maria Paola Ferretti, Etica pubblica dell'anticorruzione, chapter 3.
2. Pellegrino, Gianfranco, "L'ingiustizia della corruzione politica. Integrità, rappresentanza e delega democratica", Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Politica, 4 (2023): 75-98.
Must politicians get their hands dirty?
1. Weber, Max, "La politica come professione", in Id., La scienza come professione; La politica come professione, Einaudi, Turin 2004 [1919], pp. 47-121.
2. Walzer, Michael, "Azione politica: il problema delle mani sporche", in Id., Il filo della politica. Democrazia, critica sociale, governo del mondo, Diabasis, Reggio Emilia 2002, pp. 1-25.
Must citizens vote?
1. Brennan, Jason, Contro la democrazia, LUISS, Rome 2023, chapter 3.
2. Clementi, Francesco, Votare, Il Mulino, Bologna 2026, chapter 2.
Should we be able to say whatever we want?
1. Riva, Nicola, "Il principio del danno e le espressioni d'avversione o d'odio", Biblioteca della libertà, 224, 2019, pp. 19-38.
2. Fumagalli, Corrado, Odio pubblico: uso e abuso del discorso intollerante, Castelvecchi, Rome 2023, chapter 3.
Bibliography for non-attending students
All texts are compulsory. For further reading suggestions, students are invited to write to [email protected].
First part of the course
1. Edmonds, David, Uccideresti l'uomo grasso? Il dilemma etico del male minore, Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milan 2014.
2. Veca, Salvatore, La filosofia politica, Laterza, Bari-Rome 1998 (repr. 2010).
3. Pasquali, Francesca, "Prescrizione e valutazione", in A. Besussi and E. Biale (eds.), Fatti e principi: Una disputa sulla giustizia, Aracne, Rome 2010, pp. 38-66.
4. Ceva, Emanuela and Maria Paola Ferretti, Etica pubblica dell'anticorruzione, Carocci, Rome 2025.
5. Pellegrino, Gianfranco, Etica pubblica. Una piccola introduzione, LUISS University Press, Rome 2015.
6. Bobbio, Norberto, Il futuro della democrazia, Einaudi, Turin 1995 [1984], pp. 3-84.
7. Ottonelli, Valeria, I principi procedurali della democrazia, Il Mulino, Bologna 2012.
8. Lever, Annabelle and Philippe Van Parijs, "Perché andiamo a votare: prospettive a confronto", in V. Ottonelli and C. Fumagalli (eds.), Votare o no: La pratica democratica del voto, tra diritto individuale e scelta collettiva, Fondazione Gian Giacomo Feltrinelli, Milan 2022.
Second part of the course
What is wrong with corruption?
1. Ceva, Emanuela and Maria Paola Ferretti, Etica pubblica dell'anticorruzione, chapter 3.
2. Pellegrino, Gianfranco, "L'ingiustizia della corruzione politica. Integrità, rappresentanza e delega democratica", Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Politica, 4 (2023): 75-98.
Must politicians get their hands dirty?
1. Weber, Max, "La politica come professione", in Id., La scienza come professione; 2. La politica come professione, Einaudi, Turin 2004 [1919], pp. 47-121.
Walzer, Michael, "Azione politica: il problema delle mani sporche", in Id., Il filo della politica. Democrazia, critica sociale, governo del mondo, Diabasis, Reggio Emilia 2002, pp. 1-25.
Must citizens vote?
1. Brennan, Jason, Contro la democrazia, LUISS, Rome 2023, chapter 3.
2. Clementi, Francesco, Votare, Il Mulino, Bologna 2026, chapter 2.
Should we be able to say whatever we want?
1. Riva, Nicola, "Il principio del danno e le espressioni d'avversione o d'odio", Biblioteca della libertà, 224, 2019, pp. 19-38.
2. Fumagalli, Corrado, Odio pubblico: uso e abuso del discorso intollerante, Castelvecchi, Rome 2023, chapter 3.
All texts are compulsory. For further reading suggestions, students are invited to write to [email protected].
First part of the course
1. Ceva, Emanuela and Maria Paola Ferretti, Etica pubblica dell'anticorruzione, Carocci, Rome 2025.
2. Pellegrino, Gianfranco, Etica pubblica. Una piccola introduzione, LUISS University Press, Rome 2015.
3. Bobbio, Norberto, Il futuro della democrazia, Einaudi, Turin 1995 [1984], pp. 3-84.
4. Ottonelli, Valeria, I principi procedurali della democrazia, Il Mulino, Bologna 2012.
5. Lever, Annabelle and Philippe Van Parijs, "Perché andiamo a votare: prospettive a confronto", in V. Ottonelli and C. Fumagalli (eds.), Votare o no: La pratica democratica del voto, tra diritto individuale e scelta collettiva, Fondazione Gian Giacomo Feltrinelli, Milan 2022.
Second part of the course
What is wrong with corruption?
1. Ceva, Emanuela and Maria Paola Ferretti, Etica pubblica dell'anticorruzione, chapter 3.
2. Pellegrino, Gianfranco, "L'ingiustizia della corruzione politica. Integrità, rappresentanza e delega democratica", Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Politica, 4 (2023): 75-98.
Must politicians get their hands dirty?
1. Weber, Max, "La politica come professione", in Id., La scienza come professione; La politica come professione, Einaudi, Turin 2004 [1919], pp. 47-121.
2. Walzer, Michael, "Azione politica: il problema delle mani sporche", in Id., Il filo della politica. Democrazia, critica sociale, governo del mondo, Diabasis, Reggio Emilia 2002, pp. 1-25.
Must citizens vote?
1. Brennan, Jason, Contro la democrazia, LUISS, Rome 2023, chapter 3.
2. Clementi, Francesco, Votare, Il Mulino, Bologna 2026, chapter 2.
Should we be able to say whatever we want?
1. Riva, Nicola, "Il principio del danno e le espressioni d'avversione o d'odio", Biblioteca della libertà, 224, 2019, pp. 19-38.
2. Fumagalli, Corrado, Odio pubblico: uso e abuso del discorso intollerante, Castelvecchi, Rome 2023, chapter 3.
Bibliography for non-attending students
All texts are compulsory. For further reading suggestions, students are invited to write to [email protected].
First part of the course
1. Edmonds, David, Uccideresti l'uomo grasso? Il dilemma etico del male minore, Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milan 2014.
2. Veca, Salvatore, La filosofia politica, Laterza, Bari-Rome 1998 (repr. 2010).
3. Pasquali, Francesca, "Prescrizione e valutazione", in A. Besussi and E. Biale (eds.), Fatti e principi: Una disputa sulla giustizia, Aracne, Rome 2010, pp. 38-66.
4. Ceva, Emanuela and Maria Paola Ferretti, Etica pubblica dell'anticorruzione, Carocci, Rome 2025.
5. Pellegrino, Gianfranco, Etica pubblica. Una piccola introduzione, LUISS University Press, Rome 2015.
6. Bobbio, Norberto, Il futuro della democrazia, Einaudi, Turin 1995 [1984], pp. 3-84.
7. Ottonelli, Valeria, I principi procedurali della democrazia, Il Mulino, Bologna 2012.
8. Lever, Annabelle and Philippe Van Parijs, "Perché andiamo a votare: prospettive a confronto", in V. Ottonelli and C. Fumagalli (eds.), Votare o no: La pratica democratica del voto, tra diritto individuale e scelta collettiva, Fondazione Gian Giacomo Feltrinelli, Milan 2022.
Second part of the course
What is wrong with corruption?
1. Ceva, Emanuela and Maria Paola Ferretti, Etica pubblica dell'anticorruzione, chapter 3.
2. Pellegrino, Gianfranco, "L'ingiustizia della corruzione politica. Integrità, rappresentanza e delega democratica", Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Politica, 4 (2023): 75-98.
Must politicians get their hands dirty?
1. Weber, Max, "La politica come professione", in Id., La scienza come professione; 2. La politica come professione, Einaudi, Turin 2004 [1919], pp. 47-121.
Walzer, Michael, "Azione politica: il problema delle mani sporche", in Id., Il filo della politica. Democrazia, critica sociale, governo del mondo, Diabasis, Reggio Emilia 2002, pp. 1-25.
Must citizens vote?
1. Brennan, Jason, Contro la democrazia, LUISS, Rome 2023, chapter 3.
2. Clementi, Francesco, Votare, Il Mulino, Bologna 2026, chapter 2.
Should we be able to say whatever we want?
1. Riva, Nicola, "Il principio del danno e le espressioni d'avversione o d'odio", Biblioteca della libertà, 224, 2019, pp. 19-38.
2. Fumagalli, Corrado, Odio pubblico: uso e abuso del discorso intollerante, Castelvecchi, Rome 2023, chapter 3.
Assessment methods and Criteria
Type of assessment: mark out of thirty.
The assessment methods are consistent with the expected learning outcomes: the written examination and the group presentations verify command of the technical language and of the paradigms (outcomes 1-2), the ability to apply concepts critically to the cases (outcome 3), the ability to form and defend arguments (outcome 4), and the ability to manage peer collaboration (outcome 5 — for attending students only).
Attending students:
20% — Active participation in class discussions. In part one, through questions and interventions. In the seminar-based part two, students prepare the readings for each session and must be ready to discuss the other groups' presentations, each bringing a question and an objection to put to the presenters.
30% — Group presentation. Students select one text from those listed on MyAriel to present as a group. The presentation requires slides in which the main theses of the text are set out and the supporting arguments explained to the other students (who will also have read the text), together with the formulation of one or more objections.
50% — Final written examination. Closed and open questions on the whole syllabus. Duration: 2 hours. A mark of at least 18 in the written test is required to pass the exam.
The final mark is the weighted average of the three components according to the weights indicated.
Non-attending students:
Written test: closed and open questions on the whole syllabus. Duration: 2 hours. A mark of at least 18 is required to pass the exam.
Oral test: an interview on the course content, aimed at assessing the ability to apply concepts critically and to form and defend arguments, in place of the participation and group-presentation components.
The final mark is 50% written test and 50% oral test.
Assessment parameters and grading
Assessment takes into account: command and correct use of specialist vocabulary; understanding of and ability to distinguish the theoretical-methodological paradigms; ability to apply these categories to the analysis of the cases; capacity for critical reasoning and for arguing and defending a thesis; clarity and effectiveness of presentation.
Indicatively: 18-22 basic knowledge of the concepts and vocabulary, essential application; 23-26 good understanding of the paradigms and ability to apply them to the cases with some critical insight; 27-29 secure command, independent critical analysis and sound argumentation; 30 - 30 cum laude excellent conceptual command, critical originality and full ability to form and defend complex arguments.
The assessment methods are consistent with the expected learning outcomes: the written examination and the group presentations verify command of the technical language and of the paradigms (outcomes 1-2), the ability to apply concepts critically to the cases (outcome 3), the ability to form and defend arguments (outcome 4), and the ability to manage peer collaboration (outcome 5 — for attending students only).
Attending students:
20% — Active participation in class discussions. In part one, through questions and interventions. In the seminar-based part two, students prepare the readings for each session and must be ready to discuss the other groups' presentations, each bringing a question and an objection to put to the presenters.
30% — Group presentation. Students select one text from those listed on MyAriel to present as a group. The presentation requires slides in which the main theses of the text are set out and the supporting arguments explained to the other students (who will also have read the text), together with the formulation of one or more objections.
50% — Final written examination. Closed and open questions on the whole syllabus. Duration: 2 hours. A mark of at least 18 in the written test is required to pass the exam.
The final mark is the weighted average of the three components according to the weights indicated.
Non-attending students:
Written test: closed and open questions on the whole syllabus. Duration: 2 hours. A mark of at least 18 is required to pass the exam.
Oral test: an interview on the course content, aimed at assessing the ability to apply concepts critically and to form and defend arguments, in place of the participation and group-presentation components.
The final mark is 50% written test and 50% oral test.
Assessment parameters and grading
Assessment takes into account: command and correct use of specialist vocabulary; understanding of and ability to distinguish the theoretical-methodological paradigms; ability to apply these categories to the analysis of the cases; capacity for critical reasoning and for arguing and defending a thesis; clarity and effectiveness of presentation.
Indicatively: 18-22 basic knowledge of the concepts and vocabulary, essential application; 23-26 good understanding of the paradigms and ability to apply them to the cases with some critical insight; 27-29 secure command, independent critical analysis and sound argumentation; 30 - 30 cum laude excellent conceptual command, critical originality and full ability to form and defend complex arguments.
GSPS-01/A - Political Philosophy - University credits: 6
Asynchronous teaching: 8 hours
Synchronous online teaching: 12 hours
Lessons: 20 hours
Synchronous online teaching: 12 hours
Lessons: 20 hours
Professor:
Destri Chiara
Professor(s)