Impartiality Essay

1766 Words4 Pages

Impartial Morality

Introduction:
T
HIS essay presents the key issues surrounding the concepts of partiality and impartiality in ethical theory. In particular, it argues that the tension between partiality and impartiality has not been resolved. Consequently, it concludes that the request for moral agents to be impartial does demand too much. To achieve this goal, this essay consists of four main parts. The first part gives an overview of the concept of impartiality. The second deals with the necessity of impartiality in consequentialism and deontology. The third deals with the tension between partiality and impartiality (Demandingness Objection). Specifically, how a duty to perform supererogatory acts follows from impartial morality. The fourth and final part refutes positions that maintain that partiality and impartiality have been reconciled. Therefore, it demonstrates that current ethical theories that demand moral agents to behave in a strictly impartial fashion are unreasonable.

The Concept of Impartiality:
In his best known work on moral theory Nicomachean Ethics (350 BCE, p.1131), Aristotle proposes that to be impartial is to ‘treat like cases alike’.1 Another commonly accepted definition of impartiality is, ‘to be unbiased by one's personal preferences or interests in one's judgments’.2 Indeed, many philosophers accept these definitions as being trivially true. However, Bernard Gert suggests that the concept of impartiality is not so simple. In his work, Impartiality and Morality (2008, p.4), Gert proposes the following definition of impartiality, ‘A is impartial in respect R with regard to group G if and only if A's actions in respect R are not influenced at all by which member(s) of G are benefited or harmed by these ...

... middle of paper ...

...therwise would be obligatory. However, many feel that if a theory contains various footnotes and other qualifications, it diminishes the plausibility of that theory.

Conclusion:
To summarise, this essay has shown that the concept of impartiality is a relationship between a moral agent and a particular group. It requires that one be not influenced by which member of the group is benefited or harmed by his or her actions. Moreover, it has also shown that impartiality is a necessary condition for the ethical theories of utilitarianism and deontology. Such theories, however, cannot account for human intuition that suggests that it is acceptable to be partial in some circumstances. Finally, this essay has shown that the conflict between partiality and impartiality has not been resolved. As such, the request to be impartial with regard to morality does demand too much.

Show More
Related

  • Amputees By Choice Summary

    1306 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout this paper I will examine three different ethical views and interpret the ways in which one would respond to the scenario at hand. The initial ethical view is composed of cultural relativism. Another view is Kantian ethics. The final view involves utilitarianism. When presenting these views, I will describe each ethical view, and also I will speak abouts how a person who abides by the given ethical view would respond to the situation.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of An Impartial Spectator

    987 Words  | 2 Pages

    Adam Smith’s moral theory explains that there is an “impartial spectator” inside each of us that aids in determining what is morally and universally good, using our personal experiences and human commonalities. In order to judge our own actions, we judge and observe the actions of others, at the same time observing their judgments of us. Our impartial spectator efficiently allows us to take on two perceptions at once: one is our own, determined by self-interest, and the other is an imaginary observer. This paper will analyze the impartiality of the impartial spectator, by analyzing how humans are motivated by self-interest.

    Read More

  • Agent Alienation in Consequentialism

    1437 Words  | 3 Pages

    In “Consequentialism and Integrity,” Bernard Williams criticizes consequentialism on the ground that it is inherently unreasonable due to its insistence on negative responsibility, and as a result, denies the agent integrity. Peter Railton’s “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality” is a response to Williams and a defense of consequentialism. In the following essay, I will explain Williams’s attack on consequentialism, and Railton’s argument that consequentialism need not deny the agent integrity. I will then consider an objection to Railton’s argument, and then evaluate a possible Railtonian response.

    Read More

  • Deontological Moral Theory

    1228 Words  | 3 Pages

    Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up. According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.

    Read More

  • Sally's Prescriptive Moral Theory

    1421 Words  | 3 Pages

    Sally’s prescriptive moral theory combines two separate and unrelated principles to create an all-encompassing moral theory to be followed by moral agents at all times. The first is rooted in consequentialism and is as follows: 1. Moral agents should cause moral pain or suffering only when the pain or suffering is justified by a moral consideration that is more important than the pain or suffering caused. The second is an autonomous theory, where other’s autonomy must be respected, it is 2. Moral agents should respect the autonomy of moral agents. This requires always taking into account the rational goals of moral agents when making decisions that may affect them. The more important the goals are to the agents, the greater the importance of not obstructing them. Since Sally’s theory has two separate principles, she accounts for the possibility that they will overlap. To do so, she includes an option on how to resolve the conflicts. According to the theory, if the principles lead to conflicting actions, then moral agents should resolve the conflict on a case-by-case basis by deciding which principle should be followed given the proposed actions and circumstances.

    Read More

  • Integrity and Supererogation in Ethical Communities

    3535 Words  | 8 Pages

    ABSTRACT: This paper explores the connection between supererogation and the integrity of ethical agents. It argues two theses: (1) there is a generally unrecognized but crucial social dimension to the moral integrity of individuals which challenges individual ideals and encourages supererogation; (2) the social dimension of integrity, however, must have limits that preserve the individuals's integrity. The concept of integrity is explored through recent works by Christine Korsgaard, Charles Taylor, and Susan Babbitt. A life of integrity is in part a life whereby one 'lives up to' one's own deeply held values. Yet, as one seeks to transcend the realm of the morally customary or the dutiful, one must check one's progress not only against one's own ideals but against the ideals and behavior of the ethical community. To answer affirmatively to one's own ideals is to hear the call of integrity both from within oneself and from without. However, by being free to hear, the freedom to close one's ears inevitably will arise. Only actions displaying such freedom can be actions of moral integrity. Since supererogatory actions are always left to an agent's discretion-that is, are fully optional-they show in paradigmatic fashion the integrity of moral agents. While an ethic of integrity and supererogation provides challenges to members of an ethical community by encouraging them continually to reevaluate their actions and character in reference to postulated ideals, it also leads us to be quite wary of judging individual's moral motives from the outside. A passage by Jonathan Kozol is cited that suggests our society routinely demands supererogatory action from its poorest members. This i...

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Ethical Egoism

    728 Words  | 2 Pages

    A rear assumption is that the needs and happiness of other people will always effects on our moral ethics. If we accept this assumption, we think that our moral ethics are balancing our self-interest against that of others. It is true, that “What is morally right or wrong depends not only on how it makes us feel, but also how it affects others”.

    Read More

  • Moral Theory and Personal Relationships

    4175 Words  | 9 Pages

    In his article "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories," Michael Stocker argues that mainstream ethical theories, namely consequentialism and deontology, are incompatible with maintaining personal relations of love, friendship, and fellow feeling because they both overemphasise the role of duty, obligation, and rightness, and ignore the role of motivation in morality. Stocker states that the great goods of life, i.e. love, friendship, etc., essentially contain certain motives and preclude others, such as those demanded by mainstream ethics.11 In his paper "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality," Peter Railton argues that a particular version of consequentialism, namely sophisticated consequentialism, is not incompatible with love, affection and acting for the sake of others. In the essays "War and Massacre" and "Autonomy and Deontology," Thomas Nagel holds that a theory of absolutism, i.e. deontology, may be compatible with maintaining personal commitments. The first objective of this paper is to demonstrate that despite the efforts of both Railton and Nagel, consequentialism and deontology do not in fact incorporate personal relations into morality in a satisfactory way. This essay shows that Stocker’s challenge may also hold against versions of Virtue Ethics, such as that put forth by Rosalind Hursthouse in her article "Virtue Theory and Abortion." The second objective of this discussion is to examine criticisms of Stocker made by Kurt Baier in his article "Radical Virtue Ethics." This essay demonstrates that in the end Baier’s objections are not convincing.

    Read More

  • Kai Nielsen’s Support of Consequentialism and Rejection of Deontology

    1487 Words  | 3 Pages

    A common objection to consequentialism, that agents are burdened with duties to help others at the expense of their own happiness, was not even addressed. This in itself seems to be one form of absolutism that riddles consequentialism in general. Nielsen made it clear that one should not be absolute about insisting on weighing consequences when they are barely known, but would he reject this notion as well? It is not clear that this absolutism, of always valuing the good of others over the agent’s own self, is separable from the concept of consequentialism; so it is not clear that consequentialism can escape absolutism as Nielsen concluded in the second argument recounted here.

    Read More

  • Freedom of Speech and Expression

    1013 Words  | 3 Pages

    Beauchamp, T. L.(2003). A Defense of the Common Morality. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13(3), 259-274.

    Read More

  • Justification of Punishment!

    2840 Words  | 6 Pages

    ABSTRACT: Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground. D. D. Raphael is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Maclagan, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender. I claim that punishment is not justifiable but not in the sense in which it is claimed by Maclagan. The aim of this paper is to prove the absurdity of the enquiry as to whether punishment can be justified. Difference results from differing interpretations of the term 'justification.' In its traditional meaning, justification can hardly be distinguished from evaluation. In this sense, to justify an act is to say that it is good or right. I differ from the traditional use and insist that no act or conduct can be justified. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason, and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify.

    Read More

  • The Case of the Speluncean Explorers

    1971 Words  | 4 Pages

    What determines whether an action undertaken by any agent is right or wrong? Lon L. Fuller's 1949 article, The Case of the Speluncean Explorers, provides a situation whereby the ethical definitions of right action are evaluated. The ethical study of right action consists of two major moral theories being de-ontological (backward looking/origin) and teleological (forward looking/ends). Both also have religious and non-religious strands. The de-ontological theory consists of the divine-command theory (religious) and Kantianism (non-religious), while the teleological theory is composed of natural-law theory (religious) and utilitarianism (non-religious). In this paper, all four strands of moral theory will be used to evaluate the Fuller article and decipher which moral theory best serves the argument whether the actions of the four defendants were ethically permissible given the situation. At the end of this paper, sufficient proof will be given to prove that the application of Kantian ethical theory regarding right action—the categorical imperative—with Christine Korsgaard's double-level theories is pertinent in bringing about a moral conclusion to the case involved.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism vs. Kantianism

    1353 Words  | 3 Pages

    Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

    Read More

  • Critical Analysis Of Ethical Blindness

    760 Words  | 2 Pages

    Unit I In the article "Ethical Blindness", the writers examine how sometimes choices are frequently made without the individual notwithstanding knowing about it. The choices can be a consequence of an association between individual qualities of the person and attributes of the circumstance. Most research on ethical decision making still expands on the suspicion that choices are made by reasonable people. The rationality presumption is shown different ways. The traditionally moral logic, business ethicists more often than not expect that there is an ethical perspective from which ethicality of a choice can be assessed. It is comprehended that the ethical perspective can be translated in an unexpected way, contingent upon the particular background philosophy, yet they share the presumption that there is a target and unprejudiced line that individuals can use to measure contentions and achieve an answer. An example of this would be that some managers use different philosophical lenses when making a decision – reflecting

    Read More

  • Kant's Categorical Imperative

    1532 Words  | 4 Pages

    Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by the maxim of doing the right thing because it is right thing to do. The moral worth of an action is determined by whether or not it was acted upon out of respect for the moral law, or the Categorical Imperative. Imperatives in general imply something we ought to do however there is a distinction between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are obligatory so long as we desire X. If we desire X we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moral, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viablity of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.

    Read More

More about Impartiality Essay

Open Document