BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//CEPS - ECPv6.18.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for CEPS
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Lisbon
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:WEST
DTSTART:20220327T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:WET
DTSTART:20221030T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:WEST
DTSTART:20230326T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:WET
DTSTART:20231029T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:WEST
DTSTART:20240331T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:WET
DTSTART:20241027T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:WEST
DTSTART:20250330T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:WET
DTSTART:20251026T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:WEST
DTSTART:20260329T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:WET
DTSTART:20261025T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:WEST
DTSTART:20270328T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:WET
DTSTART:20271031T010000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20260115T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20260115T170000
DTSTAMP:20260109T165312Z
CREATED:20260109T164830Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260109T165312Z
UID:6874-1768489200-1768496400@ceps.elach.uminho.pt
SUMMARY:Ricardo Matos // Legitimacy in the European Union: A Neo-republican Political Theological Approach
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: This paper analyses the problem of political legitimacy in the European Union from a neo-republican and political-theological perspective. It argues that sovereignty cannot be understood as an empirically unified or directly observable popular will. Instead\, the sovereign emerges in an interstitial space between the theological-symbolic and the institutional-real\, where political authority is mediated through representative institutions. Legitimacy thus derives from an interiority of the people that can only be imperfectly expressed in constitutional and institutional forms. Applied to the European Union\, this framework exposes a fundamental difficulty: how to ground legitimate authority in a political order that lacks a unified demos and does not conform to the model of a classical parliamentary democracy. \nThe European project originated as a functional and anti-hegemonic arrangement rather than as a democratic polity\, privileging technocratic governance and executive federalism. This institutional design has generated a persistent tension between democracy and technocracy\, particularly as supranational institutions justify their authority through expertise\, neutrality\, and independence rather than direct electoral mandate. While technocracy may contribute to policy efficiency\, it raises serious concerns regarding democratic legitimacy and political accountability. Drawing on neo-republican theory\, the paper contends that legitimacy must be founded on freedom as non-domination and on conditions of political equality among both member states and European citizens. Asymmetric power relations between states undermine this republican ideal and foster relations of domination that obstruct the emergence of a European demos. The analysis further engages with Pierre Rosanvallon’s concept of the “crisis of equality\,” showing how growing socio-economic inequalities erode democracy as a social form and weaken the solidaristic foundations necessary for collective political agency. \nFinally\, the paper identifies concrete legitimacy deficits in the European Union\, including unequal electoral representation\, nationally framed European elections\, asymmetrical referenda\, and limited citizen influence over executive decision-making. It concludes that European legitimacy requires a reconfiguration of democracy that reconciles popular sovereignty with institutional expertise\, grounded in political equality\, non-domination\, and a shared civic belonging at the supranational level. \nBio:  Ricardo Matos is a Medical doctor\, ENT specialist\, with a master’s degree in Political Philosophy completed in 2024\, he joined the doctoral program in Political Philosophy about a year ago in order to deepen his research work on the possibility of a true European identity based on the republican principle of freedom as non-domination.
URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/event/ricardo-matos-legitimacy-in-the-european-union-a-neo-republican-political-theological-approach/
LOCATION:CEPS Room (ELACH) + Online\, Rua da Universidade\, Braga\, Portugal
CATEGORIES:CEPS PhD Seminars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/CEPS-PhD-Seminars-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20251217T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20251217T170000
DTSTAMP:20251215T173859Z
CREATED:20251215T173859Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251215T173859Z
UID:6828-1765983600-1765990800@ceps.elach.uminho.pt
SUMMARY:Leonardo Menezes // On Not Being at Home in the World: Refugees\, State (Failure) and Home-Making
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: Forcibly displaced persons are defined\, most starkly\, by the loss of home. All refugees have been compelled to leave their home and to construct another\, whether provisionally or permanently. This fact suggests that the concept of home ought to occupy a central place in normative theorizing about migration and refuge. Yet existing discussions engage the notion of home in ways that are less comprehensive than one might expect. Contemporary normative debates on refugee protection—concerning who qualifies as a refugee\, whether affluent states have obligations to admit refugees\, under what conditions\, and in what numbers—presume a largely state-centric conception of home as the primary locus of ethical life and the main conceptual bridge between justice and human flourishing. Political theorists have therefore focused on refining arguments for and against refugee admission into wealthy liberal-democratic nation-states\, typically (though not always explicitly) assumed to be North American or Western European ones (Carens 2013; Fine and Ypi 2016; Miller 2016). Even theorists who defend open borders or contest the state’s right to restrict immigration (Abizadeh 2008; Gerver 2021; Kukathas 2012; 2021; Longo 2018) retain the state as the privileged interlocutor.\n \nThis paper develops an alternative approach by articulating a relational\, African philosophical account of home(-making) in contexts of forced displacement. I proceed in two steps. First\, I argue that the near-seamless inference from the claim that states ought to secure the well-being of their citizens to the assumption that all states are capable\, in principle\, of doing so reflects a failure to acknowledge the heterogeneity of post-colonial state forms. Diagnosing this normative assumption requires a philosophical\, rather than merely empirical\, account of state failure and fragility (Wiredu 1999; Menkiti 2017; Okeja 2022). Second\, I sketch a non-statist conception of justice grounded in African communalist philosophies of relationality. On these views\, persons are not independent moral atoms but nodes within an expansive web of interdependence; the self is constituted through relations rather than standing prior to them. I argue that this relational ontology reframes the duties that individuals and communities bear toward forcibly displaced people. It also yields a revised moral baseline for refugee protection—one that reconfigures the relevant rights\, duties\, values\, and needs through the lens of relational home-making rather than state-centric membership. \nBio: Leonardo Barros da Silva Menezes is a Brazilian researcher with a solid international academic background in political philosophy/political theory. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Philosophy at the University of Minho (Centre for Ethics\, Politics and Society)\, in Portugal\, where his research focuses on the intersection between the political philosophy of refuge and African political philosophy. His work investigates the moral\, political\, and epistemic dimensions of forced migration in the Global South\, examining how the ideas and practices of actors in this context (refugees\, migrants\, citizens\, and policymakers) can reshape the normative frameworks and conceptual repertoires used by political theorists when addressing issues of justice and (forced) migration. Before beginning his doctoral studies\, Leonardo completed two master’s degrees: a Master’s in Political Theory at the Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris (Sciences Po)\, in France\, supported by the Émile Boutmy scholarship; and a Master’s in Political Science at the University of São Paulo (USP)\, in Brazil\, where he was a CAPES scholarship holder.
URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/event/leonardo-menezes-on-not-being-at-home-in-the-world-refugees-state-failure-and-home-making/
LOCATION:CEPS Room (ELACH) + Online\, Rua da Universidade\, Braga\, Portugal
CATEGORIES:CEPS PhD Seminars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/CEPS-PhD-Seminars.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20251112T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20251112T170000
DTSTAMP:20251103T164159Z
CREATED:20251103T164159Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251103T164159Z
UID:6776-1762959600-1762966800@ceps.elach.uminho.pt
SUMMARY:Kristina Vasic // Representation as a Structure of Domination
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: Suppose that P dominates Q in society (on a neo-republican account\, where to dominate is to have the capacity to arbitrarily interfere with another’s choices). Suppose further that this society is organized along the principles of representative democracy\, where representatives are chosen in elections. Now\, only P but not Q tend to get elected\, which puts them in a position of passing laws which benefit the class they belong to. But they can also just leave things as they are and not do anything to actively undermine the dominating relationship between P and Q. By doing or failing to do anything on the front of structural domination\, they assume a role of regulators\, of agents who non-contingently enable or sustain the domination dyad between P and Q. There can be many regulators in structural domination\, but the representatives are unique in that they have greater power in comparison to the represented citizen\, and this greater power provides them with more leeway within a structure of domination. The normative upshot of their greater power as regulators is\, I propose\, that they bear greater responsibility for structuring domination\, compared to other\, ordinary\, citizens. Responsibility for structuring domination\, in other words\, is proportionate to the power one has to undermine the structure. Whether representatives actively contribute to keeping P in dominating position or they fail to effect any change in this regard – they are responsible for structuring domination. The same conclusion can be reached when Q\, from the dominated part of the population\, assumes the role of a representative but does not strive to dismantle structural domination. The existing accounts of justifying power inequality in representation have so far failed to take account of this possibility\, that representatives can structure domination. I believe that an adequate justification of power inequality in representation ought to account for this scenario by construing a further necessary condition of justification\, namely\, that representation does not structure domination. \nBio: Kristina Vasic is a PhD student in Political Theory at Central European University\, Vienna and a visiting student at CEPS\, University of Minho. Previously\, she was a visiting student at the Center for Political Philosophy at Leiden University. The overall title of her paper-based thesis is Political Equality and Representative Democracy. She works on social equality\, representation and structural domination.
URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/event/kristina-vasic-representation-as-a-structure-of-domination/
CATEGORIES:CEPS PhD Seminars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/CEPS-PhD-Seminars-180.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20251029T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20251029T170000
DTSTAMP:20251028T142027Z
CREATED:20251028T141206Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251028T142027Z
UID:6753-1761750000-1761757200@ceps.elach.uminho.pt
SUMMARY:Joana Pinto // What Does Public Reason Demand of Political Parties? A Brief Comparative Theoretical Analysis
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: Theories of public reason play a central role in liberal democracies\, offering standards for the legitimacy of laws amid deep moral and political pluralism. At their core\, these theories claim that laws are legitimate only if justifiable in some sense to all citizens. Yet\, little attention has been paid to how these theories apply to political parties—the main actors in legislative decision-making. This paper addresses that gap by exploring what different theories of public reason imply for the role and functioning of political parties. It focuses on three prominent models: (1) Political Liberal Public Reason (e.g.\, Rawls in Political Liberalism)\, (2) Classical Liberal Public Reason (e.g.\, Gerald Gaus)\, and (3) Deliberative Public Reason (e.g.\, Jürgen Habermas). For each\, it asks three guiding questions: How does the theory define public reason? What implications does the theory have for the deliberative and aggregative roles of political parties? And what philosophical or practical objections arise when these principles are applied to partisan politics? This comparison reveals that applying public reason to partisan politics is not straightforward: each theory offers both guidance and limitations. Still\, by clarifying what different models demand of political parties\, we can better assess how ideals of legitimacy\, justification\, and deliberation might shape democratic practice. \nBio: Joana Pinto is a PhD candidate in Political Philosophy at the Centre for Ethics\, Politics and Society. Her doctoral research focuses on the application of public reason to the functioning of political parties\, arguing that public reason must be reconciled with the deliberative and aggregative functions that political parties perform in democratic systems. She holds a Master’s degree in Political Philosophy (2023) from the University of Minho\, where she completed her dissertation on how political parties can advance or undermine the theory of public reason proposed by John Rawls and\, more broadly\, the project of political liberalism. She also holds a Law degree (2021) from the same institution\, having pursued an interdisciplinary academic path that connects normative political theory with legal and institutional analysis. 
URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/event/joana-pinto-what-does-public-reason/
LOCATION:CEPS Room (ELACH) + Online\, Rua da Universidade\, Braga\, Portugal
CATEGORIES:CEPS PhD Seminars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/unnamed.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20250514T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20250514T180000
DTSTAMP:20250508T150129Z
CREATED:20250508T150129Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250508T150129Z
UID:6660-1747234800-1747245600@ceps.elach.uminho.pt
SUMMARY:Elections and Representation: Fragile Affinity?
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: Throughout history\, political thinkers have doubted the alliance between representation and democracy.  Even today\, the idea that democracy is going through a crisis is often tied to the belief that a crisis of representation is underway. Protest movements emerging in the past decades have given credence to these doubts\, expressing their discontent with the performance of elected representatives and growing disenchantment with representative institutions. With the now-famous slogan “We have a vote\, but we don’t have a voice!”\, citizens directly pointed out the failure of elections to represent them. In light of these developments\, this paper examines the affinity of elections and representation in representative democracy. It unfolds by pondering the fading lustre of elections related to the perceived loss of representative function. The paper proceeds by elaborating on the representative turn and the subsequent constructivist turn in political representation and considers their implications for the representative function of elections. Both turns have contributed to the rehabilitation of representation and renewed interest in the concept of representation. However\, the constructivist turn\, in particular\, has further exposed the fragile nature of the relationship between elections and representation since it conceptualised representation primarily as a process of mutual construction of the representative and the represented\, making the institutional electoral framework secondary or even disposable. Finally\, the paper thus outlines a way of conceiving the representative function of elections after the constructivist turn. \nBio: Kristina Broučková is a PhD student at the Department of Political Science\, Faculty of Arts\, Charles University. She focuses on political and democratic theory\, particularly theories of political representation. In her dissertation\, entitled “Elections and Democracy: (Un)easy Alliance\,” she examines the role of elections in representative democracy.
URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/event/elections-and-representation-fragile-affinity/
LOCATION:CEPS Room (ELACH) + Online\, Rua da Universidade\, Braga\, Portugal
CATEGORIES:CEPS PhD Seminars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/poster-Kristina.png
ORGANIZER;CN="CEPS":MAILTO:ceps@elach.uminho.pt
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20250430T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20250430T180000
DTSTAMP:20250429T112518Z
CREATED:20250429T112518Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250429T112518Z
UID:6639-1746025200-1746036000@ceps.elach.uminho.pt
SUMMARY:The Concept of Sovereignity as a Neo-Repubican Source of Legitimacy in the European Union
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: This article investigates the legitimacy of political authority within the European Union (EU) through the lens of neo-republican theory\, emphasizing the principle of non-domination as the normative foundation of democratic sovereignty. It confronts a central question regarding the source of legitimacy\, distinguishing legitimacy from justice and arguing that legitimacy arises not from pre-political legal frameworks\, but from political processes rooted in the sovereign will. The ideal of non-domination is presented as both a normative and political principle that aligns with the EU’s historical post-war project of peace and anti-hegemony. It also addresses the “democratic disconnect” highlighted by Peter Lindseth\, which reflects the growing distance between EU institutions and European citizens. The author argues for the reconnection of democratic legitimacy through a federal European union based on a unified demos and political identity. The concept of sovereignty is reinterpreted in a neo-republican framework\, integrating classical and modern political theory (e.g.\, Bodin\, Hobbes\, Schmitt). Sovereignty is not simply a legal concept\, but a political force rooted in the collective will\, characterized by perpetuity\, territoriality\, and autonomy. The article explores the tension between the sovereign as a mystical body and its tangible manifestation in political institutions\, emphasizing the interstitial nature of sovereignty. Finally\, the article criticizes technocratic and depersonalized governance in the EU and reasserts the need for a political-theological element that rehumanizes political authority. It cautions against concentrating sovereign power in a single organ without grounding it in the general will of the people. Instead\, it advocates for a dynamic\, deliberative process of democratic sovereignty\, grounded in historical identity and public discourse\, as the true foundation of legitimacy in the EU. \nBio: Medical doctor\, ENT specialist\, with a master’s degree in Political Philosophycompleted in 2024\, he joined the doctoral program in Political Philosophy about a year ago in order to deepen his research work on the possibility of a true European identity based on the republican principle of freedom as non-domination.
URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/event/the-concept-of-sovereignity-as-a-neo-repubican-source-of-legitimacy-in-the-european-union/
LOCATION:CEPS Room (ELACH) + Online\, Rua da Universidade\, Braga\, Portugal
CATEGORIES:CEPS PhD Seminars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Poster_Ricardo.png
ORGANIZER;CN="CEPS":MAILTO:ceps@elach.uminho.pt
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20250219T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20250219T170000
DTSTAMP:20250214T153908Z
CREATED:20250214T142111Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250214T153908Z
UID:6538-1739977200-1739984400@ceps.elach.uminho.pt
SUMMARY:Rodrigo Merayo Fernández // Poverty and Political Philosophy: Special Attention to Theories of Justice
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: Poverty continues to be an urgent issue and a bleeding reality in our world. Political philosophy\, especially since the middle of the last century\, has promoted a programme of thought about social justice in which poverty represents the worst of all injustices. For this reason\, this work is interested in examining how the issue of poverty has been dealt with from the theoretical postulates of the main Theories of Justice\, that is\, from the perspectives of John Rawls\, Ronald Dworkin\, the capability thinkers’Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum and\, finally\, Thomas Pogge. Alongside these\, the critical contributions of Iris Marion Young and Nancy Fraser will be briefly considered\, through which the debate is enriched. Finally\, some conclusions drawn from this theoretical journey will be analyzed. \nBio: Rodrigo Merayo Fernández is PhD in Legal Philosophy at the University Carlos III of Madrid. He has studied law at the University of León (Spain) and subsequently completed a Master in Political Theory and Democratic Culture at the University Complutense of Madrid and another in Access to the Legal Profession at the UNED (Spain). Since his inception at the University\, his academic concerns have been closely related to human rights theory and legal and political philosophy. Specifically\, his field of study is focused on reflection on human rights and social justice in general. His thesis is on poverty\, Theories of Justice and human rights approach\, with a special interest in showing the connections between international law of human rights and political philosophy in social justice issues. He has completed several doctoral stays during his PhD at the Max-Planck Institute in Heidelberg (Germany) and recently in the CEPS (Portugal). 
URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/event/poverty-and-political-philosophy-special-attention-to-theories-of-justice/
LOCATION:Online
CATEGORIES:CEPS PhD Seminars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/poster_rodrigo.png
ORGANIZER;CN="CEPS":MAILTO:ceps@elach.uminho.pt
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20250129T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20250129T170000
DTSTAMP:20250128T102220Z
CREATED:20250128T102220Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250128T102220Z
UID:6511-1738162800-1738170000@ceps.elach.uminho.pt
SUMMARY:What are values?
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: This second chapter of my dissertation examines the nature of values and their role in shaping scientific theories. From this it aims to understand how values\, by the same token\, affect economic theories and practices\, laying the groundwork for understanding how they intertwine with facts in economic thought. A significant development in recent literature is the questioning of rigid boundaries between science and policy. As argued by many authors (Douglas\, 2000; Reiss\, 2008\, 2013; Kuhn\, 1977\, et.al)\, this interconnection significantly influences the evaluation standards used by scientists. This perspective has led to growing recognition of non-epistemic values in scientific judgment\, especially in their function of weighing and interpreting epistemic values. The chapter is structured as follows: first\, as a key focus of the chapter is the distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic values\, a crucial dichotomy in philosophy of science and economics. Epistemic values – such as simplicity\, consistency\, explanatory power\, and predictive accuracy – are examined for their role in theory selection and scientific methodology. Non-epistemic values\, encompassing moral\, social\, and political commitments\, are analyzed for their influence in science. The chapter then turns to the specific question: “Where are the ‘values’ in Economics?” This section critically examines the presence and impact of values in various aspects of economic theory and practice. It challenges the notion of value-neutrality in economics\, arguing that values permeate economic thinking at multiple levels\, from the choice of research questions to the interpretation of data and the formulation of policy recommendations. The chapter concludes by preparing the ground for a deeper discussion on the entanglement between facts and values in subsequent chapters. In this seminar I intend to discuss this chapter as a work-in-progress since it is not already completed. \nBio: Catarina de Brito Carreira Tello de Castro completed her B.A. degree in Philosophy in 2017\, obtaining the official diploma in 2018\, by the Faculty of Letters of the University of Lisbon. She also completed her M.A. in Political Science and International Relations at the Catholic University of Portugal by the Institute of Political Studies\, in January 2021\, where she was supervised by Professor André Azevedo Alves\, with whom she researched about the work of the economist Gary Becker within the scope of Political Science. Catarina has been a Doctoral Student at CEPS since 2021\, with an FCT grant supervised by Professor Roberto Merrill and Co-supervised by Julian Reiss. Her work focuses mainly on the areas of Economic Theory\, Philosophy of Economics\, Political Philosophy and Epistemology.
URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/event/what-are-values/
LOCATION:Online
CATEGORIES:CEPS PhD Seminars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/values.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20241128T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20241128T170000
DTSTAMP:20241122T101129Z
CREATED:20241122T101129Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20241122T101129Z
UID:6241-1732806000-1732813200@ceps.elach.uminho.pt
SUMMARY:Funding an Universal Basic Income in the Digital Age: autonomy\, circularity and non- domination in digital spaces
DESCRIPTION:Digital platforms have become central to contemporary political\, economic\, and social activities\, fundamentally reshaping human communication and interaction (Zuboff\, 2019). Activities such as political debate\, governmental decision-making\, and even warfare now largely depend on the digital world. This shift introduces new norms for human interaction and impacts critical domains like politics\, economics\, and labor. However\, the neutrality often ascribed to digital transformations obscures significant ethical challenges\, including (i) behavioral algorithmic biases\, (ii) mass surveillance mechanisms\, and (iii) inequities in digital relations. This article calls for a re-evaluation of the digital transition through the lens of digital ethics\, emphasizing two key principles: promoting human rights by enhancing social welfare and advancing ecological sustainability to prevent environmental catastrophes. By framing technological advancements as opportunities to pursue more equitable and sustainable futures\, the article explores how public policies can align with digital innovations. Proposals include frameworks to hold big-tech firms accountable\, such as taxation mechanisms and redistributive policies like an Unconditional Basic Income (UBI). UBI\, in particular\, is presented as one viable policy to face the growing economic disparities\, ensuring a fairer distribution of the digital economy’s benefits while promoting ecological balance. A critical aspect of big tech’s success lies in the commodification of user data\, often justified by the voluntary nature of participation in digital platforms. However\, as digital networks become indispensable\, a libertarian view of free choice in data sharing becomes increasingly untenable. This calls for democratic oversight and fair compensation aligned with these companies’ substantial profits. The article advocates for taxation frameworks that channel a portion of these profits into public contributions\, recognizing data as an individual and societal resource. \n \nThiago is a PhD candidate at UMinho and a researcher at CEPS. His main topic of study is currently Unconditional Basic Income and its perspectives on ecological transition. Thiago holds a master’s degree in Political Science (Nova University Lisbon) and a bachelor’s degree in Law (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro). He published the book The Bolsa Família Case: A Path to Unconditional Basic Income\, based on his master’s thesis. Thiago was born and raised in Rio de Janeiro\, Brazil. He moved to Lisbon\, Portugal\, in 2019 to pursue his postgraduate studies. In 2022\, he started his PhD program at UMinho with the research project entitled “The moral\, political and ecological value of the UBI: a critical examination of pilot experiences.” His main research interests are Unconditional Basic Income\, Post-productivism\, Climate Crisis\, and Republicanism.
URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/event/funding-an-universal-basic-income-in-the-digital-age-autonomy-circularity-and-non-domination-in-digital-spaces/
LOCATION:Online
CATEGORIES:CEPS PhD Seminars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/poster_Thiago_seminario.png
ORGANIZER;CN="CEPS":MAILTO:ceps@elach.uminho.pt
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20241106T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20241106T170000
DTSTAMP:20241104T120330Z
CREATED:20241104T120330Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20241104T120330Z
UID:6203-1730905200-1730912400@ceps.elach.uminho.pt
SUMMARY:Moral Immorality: Consequentialist justifications of wrongdoing
DESCRIPTION:João da Rocha Rodrigues is a PhD candidate at the Centre for Ethics\, Politics and Society (CEPS)\, and has a degree in Philosophy from the University of Minho. His current PhD project is funded by the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). It focuses on the problem of acceptable partiality in ethics\, as well as the ethical theories that reconcile it with impartial moral demands. He has also published on utilitarianism and presented academic work at conferences about retributive justice\, toleration\, and the philosophy of Thomas Nagel. His other research interests include the history of ideas\, and he has co-edited a volume on the history of political thought titled Antigos e Modernos: Uma Introdução à História do Pensamento Político. \nThere are many varieties of consequentialist moral theories\, but their common element is that they class right action as the one that leads to the best consequences impartially considered. In Bentham’s famous dictum\, “Everybody to count for one\, nobody for more than one.” Due to this emphasis on impartiality\, consequentialism has had trouble accommodating seemingly acceptable forms of partiality. It seems either impossible\, undesirable\, or at the very least not blameworthy\, to act partially in a variety of circumstances. Two different consequentialist strategies for solving these difficulties will be evaluated here. The first is rule consequentialism\, which shifts the focus of consequentialism from actions to rules. In this way\, certain rules that sanction partiality can be accepted since they lead to better overall outcomes. The second strategy is Derek’s Parfit argument for moral immorality. Parfit argues that the development of certain dispositions that lead to partial behaviors can be sanctioned by consequentialism because these too lead\, generally\, to better outcomes; even if they also result\, predictably\, in immoral behavior by the consequentialist’s own standards. It is an extremely interesting form of moral argument that tries to justify\, paradoxically\, doing what is known to be wrong. Both of these strategies will be found to be lacking and not fully to resolve consequentialism’s issue with partiality.
URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/event/moral-immorality-consequentialist-justifications-of-wrongdoing/
LOCATION:CEPS Room (ELACH) + Online\, Rua da Universidade\, Braga\, Portugal
CATEGORIES:CEPS PhD Seminars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/poster-seminário-João-Rodrigues.png
ORGANIZER;CN="CEPS":MAILTO:ceps@elach.uminho.pt
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20241031T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20241031T170000
DTSTAMP:20241030T232909Z
CREATED:20241030T231718Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20241030T232909Z
UID:6175-1730386800-1730394000@ceps.elach.uminho.pt
SUMMARY:Pedro Pinheiro // Left-Wing Populism: What People?
DESCRIPTION:[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Bio: Pedro Pinheiro is a PhD researcher at CEPS. His research project is entitled “Left-wing populism: an investigation on a subversive dissent”\, and is supervised by Professor Giuseppe Ballacci (University of Minho) and co-supervised by Alexandre Franco de Sá (University of Coimbra). His research interests are wide inside the fields of political philosophy\, so that would include populism\, representation\, history of ideas\, sovereignty\, constituent power\, antagonism\, agonistic democracy\, liberal democracy. \nAbstract: In response to the current crisis of the democratic left\, Chantal Mouffe suggests that populism offers a way for the left to advance and deepen democracy. I argue\, however\, that the way in which left-wing populism conceives of “the people” undermines the very concept of popular sovereignty and makes it impossible to think of “the people” in democratic terms. This paper situates the populist notion of “the people” within the historical context of popular sovereignty in order to highlight its undemocratic tendencies. Specifically\, I argue that left-wing populism’s approach to representation erases any meaningful existence of the people as sovereign. Let’s see how my argument gets structured. The left populist dynamics\, marked by an anti-essentialism that sees society as fluid and open\, sees “the people” as a collection of particles that can be assembled and disassembled without any pre-existing model. This leads to the disintegration of the concept of the people\, which arises from the rejection of sovereignty\, the assumption that there are no pre-political societies\, and the belief that each individual is simply a unit of interest driven by an insatiable desire (Spinoza’s conatus). In the absence of an essentialised sovereignty\, of a pre-political dynamic and with the elevation of the status of passions\, individuals become agents of public discontent\, forming an imaginary demos through discursive-affective formations centred on demands or a leader who embodies “the people” as an ever-shifting emotional identity dependent on its opposite for a definition.Since “the people” are seen as having no inherent essence\, their unity in left-wing populism exists only in the relationship between the representative and the contingently represented. “The represented depends on the representative for the constitution of his or her own identity” (Laclau\, 2007: 158) (“¡Chávez ya no soy yo! ¡Chávez es un pueblo! Chávez somos millones\, tú también eres Chávez.”). The limitations of reducing the concept of “the people” to mere contingency can be seen in three keyways. First\, by focusing on the struggle against established power by an indeterminate constituent power defined by its leader\, left-wing populism relies on political polarisation to create “the people”. Second\, it moralises politics\, giving the people a moral and epistemological status as inherently good\, just\, oppressed and victimised\, as if their demands and identities represent truth and ethics. Third\, its emphasis on identity-based activism elevates race\, gender and sex to essential political attributes\, distancing left-wing populism from liberalism while marginalising opponents who fall outside its narrow definition of democratic pluralism. This session will contour the theory behind left-wing populism and expose its undemocratic foundations. Ultimately\, this populist conception of “the people” not only prevents the hypothesis of representation\, but also weakens liberal democracy’s ability to uphold the very rights and freedoms that populism claims to champion. In this session\, left-wing populism is portrayed as a strategy that does not seek equality\, but rather power.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/event/pedro-pinheiro-left-wing-populism-what-people/
LOCATION:CEPS Room (ELACH) + Online\, Rua da Universidade\, Braga\, Portugal
CATEGORIES:CEPS PhD Seminars,Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/poster-seminário-31-Outubro-Pedro-Pinheiro-scaled.jpg
ORGANIZER;CN="CEPS":MAILTO:ceps@elach.uminho.pt
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20240523T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20240523T170000
DTSTAMP:20240519T165846Z
CREATED:20240519T164814Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240519T165846Z
UID:5505-1716476400-1716483600@ceps.elach.uminho.pt
SUMMARY:Stefano Calboli // AI Nudging and Autonomy: Delineating the issue and embracing the bright side
DESCRIPTION:The Centre for Ethics Politics and Society (CEPS)\, University of Minho \nCEPS PhD Seminar\, Thursday\, May 23 at 15h (GMT) – online \nStefano Calboli (CEPS)\, “AI Nudging and Autonomy: Delineating the issue and embracing the bright side” \nAbstract: In this presentation\, I consider the use of AI in the practice of nudging and discuss its impact on the decision autonomy of nudges. In the first part of the presentation\, I examine the arguments that suggest AI-driven nudges are more concerning for decision autonomy than traditional nudges\, here understood as nudges devoid of AI. In the second part\, I identify the cases that are actually problematic for decision autonomy\, emphasizing that the increase in effectiveness due to the hyper-personalization characteristic of AI-driven nudges does not necessarily imply an increase in problematic cases from the standpoint of decision autonomy. In the third and final part of the presentation\, I argue that even admitting that AI-driven nudges increase the number of cases where decision autonomy is at risk\, the potential of AI can also be used to improve the quality of ethical safeguards required in nudging. First\, I argue that AI can be used to better identify cases that are actually problematic for decision autonomy compared to methods that do not utilize AI\, allowing for a more precise understanding of the decision-makers’ preferences and wills. I conclude by arguing that AI furthermore enables us to optimize accuracy in identifying the specific cases on which the impact on the nudgee’s decision autonomy is assessed. The pressure exerted by the nudge is not indifferent to certain elements of the decisional environment in which the nudge is embedded. AI systems can assist us in the difficult task of grouping similar cases in terms of the nudge embedded in a certain decision-making environment (rather than considering only the nudge)\, computing the pressure exerted\, and acting promptly accordingly to safeguard decision autonomy.
URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/event/stefano-calboli-ai-nudging-and-autonomy-delineating-the-issue-and-embracing-the-bright-side/
LOCATION:Online
CATEGORIES:CEPS PhD Seminars,Events,Seminars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/poster-stefano.jpg
ORGANIZER;CN="CEPS":MAILTO:ceps@elach.uminho.pt
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20240313T163000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20240313T173000
DTSTAMP:20240311T190117Z
CREATED:20240311T172036Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240311T190117Z
UID:5319-1710347400-1710351000@ceps.elach.uminho.pt
SUMMARY:Alejandro Berrotarán // Taxes and property rights: the conception of property underlying the principle of ability to pay
DESCRIPTION:CEPS PhD Seminars  \nTaxes and property rights: the conception of property underlying the principle of ability to pay \nby Alejandro Berrotarán (UNC – Argentina) \nBio: Alejandro Berrotarán is an Assistant Professor and a PhD candidate in law at the National University of Córdoba (Argentina). He has been a visiting researcher at the University of Melbourne (Australia)\, the University of Girona (Spain)\, and the Université catholique de Louvain (Belgium). His research focuses on distributive justice\, tax law\, and the inheritance of wealth \nAbstract: The traditional view on taxation considers taxes as a necessary moral evil. A moral evil because they affect the taxpayer’s moral right to private property\, yet necessary for the functioning of the State. This presentation challenges the conception of property rights that underlies the traditional way tax principles and taxes are perceived. In contrast to the prevailing pre-institutional conception of property rights\, it advocates for an institutional conception. By analyzing the principle of ability-to-pay\, it critiques the normative assumptions inherent in the way taxes are understood and proposes an alternative institutional approach grounded in Kant and Rawls. This institutional view offers a principled approach to limit State tax authority and reconcile the perceived conflict between tax collection and private property rights\, thereby reshaping State views of taxation \nLink zoom:  https://shorturl.at/qQSW0
URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/event/alejandro-berrotaran-taxes-and-property-rights-the-conception-of-property-underlying-the-principle-of-ability-to-pay/
LOCATION:CEPS Room (ELACH) + Online\, Rua da Universidade\, Braga\, Portugal
CATEGORIES:CEPS PhD Seminars,Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Poster-seminar-Alejandro.jpg
ORGANIZER;CN="CEPS":MAILTO:ceps@elach.uminho.pt
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20240221T113000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Lisbon:20240221T123000
DTSTAMP:20240219T174804Z
CREATED:20240213T231037Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240219T174804Z
UID:5253-1708515000-1708518600@ceps.elach.uminho.pt
SUMMARY:Catarina Neves // Why should we be grateful for the welfare state?
DESCRIPTION:CEPS PhD Seminars  \n  \nWhy should we be grateful for the welfare state?\nby Catarina Neves (CEPS) \nBio: Catarina Neves is a doctoral researcher in Political Philosophy at the Center for Ethics\, Politics ans Society\, with the thesis “Justifying an Unconditional Basic Income: reciprocity\, productive justice and the impact of UBI in the labor market”. She is also invited assistant at the Nova School of Business and Economics in Lisbon\, where she teaches Ethics. \nShe is co-author of a book on basic income experiments: Basic Income Experiments. A Critical Examination of Their Goals\, Contexts\, and Methods (2022)\, published by Palgrave Macmillan. \nAbstract: This talk is based on a working idea gratitude and the welfare state. I aim to show that there is a political obligation of gratitude to the welfare state which determines support for the maintenance and enlargement of benefits. To do so\, I will first outline the concept of gratitude\, what it means\, what is it implied when we are grateful and connect it with similar concepts such as reciprocity. I will then argue why we should be concerned with gratitude\, exploring concerns from relational equality namely at an institutional-individual level (Voigt\, 2018\, p. 439; Schemmel\, 2012; Shiffrin\, 2017). Finally\, I will attempt to illustrate some institutional implications of this view\, namely the conditions where gratitude is warranted (or not)\, and what this obligation might require citizens to do. \nLink zoom:  https://shorturl.at/qQSW0
URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/event/catarina-neves-why-should-we-be-grateful-for-the-welfare-state/
LOCATION:CEPS Room (ELACH) + Online\, Rua da Universidade\, Braga\, Portugal
CATEGORIES:CEPS PhD Seminars,Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/poster-catarina-divulgação-email.jpg
ORGANIZER;CN="CEPS":MAILTO:ceps@elach.uminho.pt
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20231004
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20231005
DTSTAMP:20240129T001218Z
CREATED:20231024T163235Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240129T001218Z
UID:2243-1696377600-1696463999@ceps.elach.uminho.pt
SUMMARY:João Cruz Ribeiro // Legal republicanism and the evolution of free movement of persons in EU Law
DESCRIPTION:[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]João Ribeiro\, a PhD student at CEPS\, will present on “Legal republicanism and the evolution of free movement of persons in EU Law.” This seminar will be conducted via Zoom.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
URL:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/event/ceps-phd-seminar/
LOCATION:Online
CATEGORIES:CEPS PhD Seminars,Events,Seminars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://ceps.elach.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CEPS-PhD-Seminar.jpeg
ORGANIZER;CN="CEPS":MAILTO:ceps@elach.uminho.pt
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR