If you are looking for comfort in those vicious times, look no further than academic journals. Those old-fashioned institutions or should we call them by their new name... those websites take such a long view of things that you will find no trace of COVID-19 in this issue of ETMP – and thank god for that if you ask me. Still, philosophy in particular has always paid a steep price for its taking of the long view: basically, nobody cares. It is therefore a delight for us to be able to present, in this issue of Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, a philosophical debate that has, at the same time, all the strengths of the rigour, precision and over-the-top clarity commonly associated with analytic philosophy while also preserving the ambition of both using and explaining recent historical cases with all their real-life complexities (rather than fanciful thought-experiments, that is). Enter so-called vice epistemology. I know, it isn’t the sexiest name in the game but isn’t that the point of taking the long view? Boring is good, just look at Trump. One of the most influential authors within vice epistemology is surely Quassim Cassam and our journal now publishes a book symposium on Cassam’s Vices of the Mind (Cassam 2019): the symposium consists of four commentaries plus author’s replies (Alfano 2019; Cassam 2020; Plakias 2020; Tanesini 2020; and Vigani 2020). Before talking content, let me emphasize that this is the first – but not the last – book symposium of its kind for ETMP: it has been run internally by one of the journal’s editors –me rather than having been submitted as a special issue by an external guest editor. You are always welcome to submit proposals for both special issues and book symposia, by the way, see our CFP. We run our internal book symposia as follows: the journal’s editorial team selects books which are interesting enough from an argumentative point of view to warrant not just a book review or a review essay (which, again, you are welcome to suggest to us) but multiple commentaries, generally between three and five. The ETMP editorial team then contacts the author (we couldn’t do a symposium if an author didn’t want to reply to critics, but that hasn’t happened yet... wonder why) and selects commentators. This is obviously a different strategy from the classic passive approach of a journal which just has referees evaluate unsolicited submissions but – it is important to stress – Ethical Theory and Moral Practice https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-020-10135-7

中文翻译：

---

邪恶时代

如果您想在那些恶劣的时期寻求安慰，那么学术期刊就是您的最佳选择。那些老式的机构，或者我们应该用他们的新名字来称呼它们……这些网站对事物的看法如此长远，以至于在本期 ETMP 中您找不到任何 COVID-19 的踪迹——如果您问的话，感谢上帝我。尽管如此，特别是哲学总是为它的长远观点付出高昂的代价：基本上，没有人在乎。因此，我们很高兴能够在本期伦理理论与道德实践中提出一场哲学辩论，该辩论同时具有严谨的所有优势，通常与分析哲学相关的精确性和过度清晰，同时也保留了使用和解释最近历史案例及其所有现实生活复杂性（而不是幻想的思想实验）的雄心。进入所谓的副认识论。我知道，这不是游戏中最性感的名字，但这不是从长远来看的重点吗？无聊是好事，看看特朗普就知道了。副认识论中最有影响力的作者之一肯定是 Quassim Cassam，我们的期刊现在出版了一本关于 Cassam's Vices of the Mind (Cassam 2019) 的书籍研讨会：该研讨会由四篇评论和作者的回复组成 (Alfano 2019; Cassam 2020; Plakias 20) ；Tanesini 2020；和 Vigani 2020）。在说内容之前，让我强调一下，这是第一次——但不是最后一次——ETMP 此类书籍研讨会：它是由该期刊的一位编辑 - 我在内部运行的，而不是由外部客座编辑作为特刊提交的。随时欢迎您提交特刊和书籍研讨会的提案，顺便说一下，请参阅我们的 CFP。我们按如下方式举办内部图书研讨会：期刊的编辑团队从论证的角度选择足够有趣的书籍，不仅保证书评或评论文章（同样，欢迎您向我们建议），而且多条评论，一般在三到五条之间。ETMP 编辑团队随后会联系作者（如果作者不想回复评论，我们就无法召开座谈会，但这还没有发生…… 不知道为什么）并选择评论员。这显然与期刊的经典被动方法不同，后者只让审稿人评估未经请求的提交，但 - 重要的是要强调 - 伦理理论和道德实践 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-020-10135- 7