Papers by Francesco Testini
Topoi. An International Review of Philosophy, 2024
The idea of a distinctively political normativity came under sustained fire lately. Here I formul... more The idea of a distinctively political normativity came under sustained fire lately. Here I formulate, test, and reject a moderate and promising way of conceiving it. According to this conception, political normativity is akin to the kind of normativity at play in all-things-considered judgments, i.e., those judgments that weight together all the relevant reasons to determine what practical rationality as such requires to do. I argue that even when we try to conceive political normativity in this all-things considered way, and even when we do not concede from the get-go that moral reasons necessarily trump or overrides normative reasons of a different kind, political normativity is still reducible to morality, because the peculiar content of all-things-considered political oughts remain explainable through general moral principles and contextual facts that do not obtain exclusively in political scenarios, but in many others too. If my arguments are correct, I provide political realists with one more reason to withdraw from the metaethical battle over the idea of a distinctively political normativity and show that the moralist approach is defensible against a prima facie promising, but ultimately untenable, alternative.
Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 2024
Pragmatic vindicatory genealogies provide both a cause and a rationale and can thus affect the sp... more Pragmatic vindicatory genealogies provide both a cause and a rationale and can thus affect the space of reasons. But how far is the space of reasons affected by this kind of genealogical argument? What normative and evaluative implications do these arguments have? In this paper, I unpack this issue into three different sub-questions and explain what kinds of reasons they provide, for whom are these reasons, and for what. In relation to this final sub-question I argue, most importantly, that these arguments are ambiguous about what they give us reasons for, meaning that they can be interpreted both as justifications for recognizing the normative standing of certain norms, values, and practices-and thus for living by them-and as excuses for those that do so. I illustrate this point by reference to the genealogical vindication of honour cultures, showing how the vindicatory argument can illuminate such case as one of excusing moral ignorance. Drawing on legal theory and moral philosophy, I show that different evaluative and normative implications hang on the result of the interpretation as either justification or excuse, and show that this ambiguity is a virtue rather than a limitation.
Notizie di Politeia, 2024
In the last couple of years, two important books concerning moral progress arrived in the press, ... more In the last couple of years, two important books concerning moral progress arrived in the press, namely Philp Kitcher's Moral Progress and Victor Kumar's and Richmond Campbell's A Better Ape. In this critical notice, I review both books and problematize the way in which they respectively try to tie together moral progress and the theory of evolution.
Res Publica, 2021
In this paper, I argue that one approach to normative political theory, namely contextualism, can... more In this paper, I argue that one approach to normative political theory, namely contextualism, can benefit from a specific kind of historical inquiry, namely genealogy, because the latter provides a solution to a deep-seated problem for the former. This problem consists in a lack of critical distance and originates from the justificatory role that contextualist approaches attribute to contextual facts. I compare two approaches to genealogical reconstruction, namely the historiographical method pioneered by Foucault and the hybrid method of pragmatic genealogy as practiced by Bernard Williams, arguing that they both ensure an increase in critical distance while preserving contextualism's distinctiveness. I also show, however, that only the latter provides normative action-guidance and can thus assist the contextualist theorist in the crucial task of discerning how far certain contextual facts deserve their justificatory role. I prove this point by showing how a pragmatic genealogy of the practice of punishment can inform the contextualist's reflection about the role this practice should play in a transitional scenario, i.e. in the set of circumstances societies go through in the aftermath of large scale violence and human rights violation.
Biblioteca della Libertà, 2021
Il 2020 ha visto la pubblicazione di due notevoli opere sulla filosofia politica: Utopohobia: On ... more Il 2020 ha visto la pubblicazione di due notevoli opere sulla filosofia politica: Utopohobia: On the Limits (if any) of Political Philosophy, di David Estlund e What is Political Philosophy?, di Charles Larmore. Ci sarebbe molto da dire su entrambi questi volumi. Tuttavia, lo spazio a disposizione è limitato e impone una scelta. Ho optato per questa: dopo aver offerto una sintesi criminalmente breve del nucleo argomentativo dei due volumi (sezione 2), li metterò in dialogo. Cercherò, in altre parole, di usare alcune risorse offerte dall’uno per interrogare e problematizzare alcuni aspetti centrali dell’altro. Per quanto riguarda Larmore, l’aspetto che discuterò è il primato che egli assegna al disaccordo e al problema della legittimità in filosofia politica: un punto che interrogherò a partire da alcune critiche offerte da Estlund nei primi capitoli del suo libro (sezione 3). Per quanto riguarda Estlund, mi concentrerò sul tema della severità dei principi di giustizia e, più nello specifico, sulla questione di quanto esigenti possano essere tali principi se devono essere riconosciuti come tali (ossia come principi di giustizia). In merito, alcune delle obiezioni che Larmore muove contro Cohen torneranno utili, anche se solo trasversalmente, per portare Estlund verso alcune conclusioni problematiche (sezione 4).
Aphex - Portale Italiano di Filosofia Analitica, 2020
In questo saggio traccio un profilo del pensiero di Bernard Williams, concentrandomi su temi rela... more In questo saggio traccio un profilo del pensiero di Bernard Williams, concentrandomi su temi relativi alla filosofia morale e, più nello specifico, ricostruendo la sua disamina dell'idea di oggettività in questa disciplina. Dopo aver esaminato le sue critiche all'idea di teoria etica normativa, offro un inquadramento metaetico della sua posizione e concludo mostrando le sue affinità con la riflessione etica degli antichi Greci e, in particolar modo, di Aristotele.
European Journal of Political Theory, 2020
Starting from the 'Dewey Lectures', Rawls presents his conception of justice within a contextuali... more Starting from the 'Dewey Lectures', Rawls presents his conception of justice within a contextualist framework, as an elaboration of the basic ideas embedded in the political culture of liberal-democratic societies. But how are these basic ideas to be justified? In this article, I reconstruct and criticize Rawls's strategy to answer this question. I explore an alternative strategy, consisting of a genealogical argument of a pragmatic kind-the kind of argument provided by authors like Bernard Williams, Edward Craig and Miranda Fricker. I outline this genealogical argument drawing on Rawls's reconstruction of the origins of liberalism. Then, I clarify the conditions under which this kind of argument maintains vindicatory power. I claim that the argument satisfies these conditions and that pragmatic genealogy can thus partially vindicate the basic ideas of liberal-democratic societies.
Parliamentary Affairs, 2020
Scholarship in rhetorical political analysis and parliamentary studies devoted little attention t... more Scholarship in rhetorical political analysis and parliamentary studies devoted little attention to study how politicians employ intellectuals' authority and theories in their discourses. We offer methodological directions to navigate this territory, combining quantitative and qualitative analyses to investigate the employment of Machiavelli's figure in the Italian Parliament. We show that Machiavelli is regarded as a contested authority and that appeals to his arguments can perform different rhetorical functions, which are countered with different rhetorical tactics. In particular, we show that the right appropriates the realist Machiavelli, especially in foreign policy, both as a national symbol and as a legitimate source of insights on political affairs, while the left and the center resist these claims with alternative rhetorical tactics. Finally, we provide an original dataset and a new theoretical framework for future explorations of intellectuals and other authoritative figures' rhetorical influence on politics.
Talks by Francesco Testini
Biblioteca della Libertà - Brief, 2019
Intervista a Daniele Chieffi sulla dimensione politica dei Social Media. Daniele Chieffi: Docente... more Intervista a Daniele Chieffi sulla dimensione politica dei Social Media. Daniele Chieffi: Docente di media relations e crisis management presso l'Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano e direttore della Collana "Neo - Scenari dell'Innovazione Digitale per l'editore Franco Angeli. Oltre all'insegnamento, ha ricoperto posizioni dirigenziali nei dipartimenti di PR del settore corporate italiano (Eni e Unicredit) e, tra il 2019 e il 2020, è stato direttore della comunicazione presso il Dipartimento per l'Innovazione e la Digitalizzazione della Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri.
Book Reviews by Francesco Testini
Biblioteca della Libertà, 2018
A mente fredda 1 di Francesco Testini Book Review 117 Canetti una volta scrisse: «qualsiasi cosa ... more A mente fredda 1 di Francesco Testini Book Review 117 Canetti una volta scrisse: «qualsiasi cosa sia mai servita a uccidere, qualsiasi parola, opinione, convincimento, tutto questo ritorna. Ecco l'unico eterno ritorno». Questa sentenza fa da eloquente esergo all'ultimo libro di Pier Paolo Portinaro, dedicato alla sinistra ricorrenza del genocidio nella storia. Al rap-porto tra la parola e la cosa, alla complessa topografia dei dintorni semantici del termine "genocidio" e ai suoi usi sono dedicate alcune delle pagine più interessanti, poste ad apertura di una lunga e attenta analisi che si sviluppa lungo tutto il testo, spaziando da una ricostruzione delle maggiori teorie an-tropologiche e sociologiche della violenza collettiva fino a una rassegna critica degli strumenti giudiziari, istituzionali e intellettuali con cui l'umanità ha cer-cato di proteggersi da essa. Tutto questo passando attraverso una valutazione storica dell'ubiquità del genocidio che prende le mosse dal mondo antico, un'indagine meticolosa dei rapporti tra genocidio e politica (soprattutto nella sua veste totalitaria) e una contestualizzazione delle dinamiche genocidarie dopo la fine del bipolarismo, in quella che Norberto Bobbio ha definito "età dei diritti". Nel suo complesso, il libro va a coprire un'ampia costellazione di temi e traccia una serie di connessioni che vanno ben oltre i confini della disciplina storica-in questo il sottotitolo non deve fuorviare-per cimen-tarsi con scioltezza nel campo delle scienze sociali, della giurisprudenza e, ovviamente, della riflessione filosofica. 1 Il volume recensito è L'imperativo di uccidere. Genocidio e democidio nella storia, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2017, pp. 292, di Pier Paolo Portinaro.
Books by Francesco Testini
ETS, Pisa, 2023
Bernard Williams is universally recognised as one of the most important voices in 20th century mo... more Bernard Williams is universally recognised as one of the most important voices in 20th century moral and political philosophy. Yet his thought has only rarely been the subject of comprehensive analysis and interpretation: more often, attention has focused on his celebrated critiques of specific theoretical paradigms, such as the Kantian and the utilitarian ones. This book attempts to fill this gap. Considering Williams' work in its entirety, it reconstructs the particular and fascinating picture of moral philosophy that emerges from it. The ideal of ethical objectivity acts as a thread running through this reconstruction. More precisely, the basic question guiding the investigation is what remains of this ideal once Williams' critique of three fundamental ideas for moral philosophy has been sifted: that of normative theory, that of ethical knowledge and that of human nature (understood as a possible basis for objective ethical prescriptions). The answer, in a nutshell, is 'very little'. But this does not imply an abandonment to relativism. Rather, the answer implies the need to become aware of the historicity of our values and to re-examine them from a peculiar point of view, both historical and philosophical, in order to assess which ones deserve our trust. As suggested in this book, in the last years of his life Williams offered many useful insights for doing this.
Uploads
Papers by Francesco Testini
Talks by Francesco Testini
Book Reviews by Francesco Testini
Books by Francesco Testini