In Brian Feltham & John Cottingham (eds.), Partiality and Impartiality: Morality, Special Relationships, and the Wider World. Oxford University Press. pp. 26-41 (2010)

Brad Hooker
University of Reading
With respect to morality, the term ‘impartiality’ is used to refer to quite different things. My paper will focus on three: 1. Impartial application of good (first-order) moral rules 2. Impartial benevolence as the direct guide to decisions about what to do 3. Impartial assessment of (first-order) moral rules What are the relations among these three? Suppose there was just one good (first-order) moral rule, namely, that one should choose whatever one thinks will maximize aggregate good. If there were just this one moral rule, then impartial application of that one rule might be compatible with impartial benevolence as the direct guide to decisions about what to do. But now suppose there are other good moral rules, such as ones that prohibit certain kinds of act, ones that permit some degree of preferential concern for oneself, and ones that require some degree of preference for one’s friends and family in one’s decisions about how to allocate one’s time, attention, and other resources. If there are these other good rules, then at least sometimes impartially applying and complying with them will conflict with letting impartial benevolence dictate what to do. More importantly, we can reject impartial benevolence as the direct guide to decisions about what to do while endorsing impartial application of good (first-order) moral rules. Likewise, rejecting impartial benevolence as the direct guide to decisions about what to do does not entail rejecting impartial assessment of (first-order) moral rules. Section 1 of this paper argues that impartiality in the application of good moral rules is always appropriate. Section 2 argues that impartial benevolence as a direct guide to decisions about what to do is appropriate only sometimes. Section 3 argues that impartiality in the assessment of rules is or is not appropriate---depending on how plausible the impartially selected rules are
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2011
Buy the book Find it on
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 68,944
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Impartiality.Troy Jollimore - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Morality, Impartiality and Due Partialities.Maria A. Carrasco - 2015 - Journal of Value Inquiry 49 (4):667-689.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Demandingness Objection.Brad Hooker - 2009 - In T. Chappell (ed.), The Problem of Moral Demandingness. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 148-162.
Political Theory and Cultural Diversity.Peter Jones - 1998 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 1 (1):28-62.
The Impartial Observer Theorem of Social Ethics.Philippe Mongin - 2001 - Economics and Philosophy 17 (2):147-179.
Fairness.Brad Hooker - 2005 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8 (4):329 - 352.
Mencius, the Feminine Perspective and Impartiality.Cecilia Wee - 2003 - Asian Philosophy 13 (1):3 – 13.


Added to PP index

Total views
116 ( #99,423 of 2,498,162 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #89,890 of 2,498,162 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes