PANEL 8 / PARTIALITY AND IMPARTIALITY IN ETHICS AND POLITICS
CONVENORS: JOÃO DA ROCHA RODRIGUES and JOSÉ COLEN
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected] and [email protected].
A growing body of work has sought to bridge the gap between impartiality in ethics and politics and the irreducibly subjective aspects of human experience. These subjective aspects involve, to a great extent, the inescapable worth of our own ground projects, as well as “special” relationships we have with others—such as family, friends, or countrymen. In short, we cannot but act “partially” toward ourselves or to those close to us.
Thomas Nagel has been at the forefront of this effort, exploring how we can reconcile the demands of impartiality with the personal bonds, loyalties, and individual projects that shape our perspectives, but others such as Liam Murphy, Samuel Scheffler, and Susan Wolf, also wrote extensively on the question.
In stark contrast to this movement, many contemporary ethical and political theories, such as utilitarianism and Rawlsian liberalism, continue to insist on impartial ethics. Despite their differences, both frameworks require us to step back from our personal “biases” when deciding on the central principles of ethics or politics. This impartial stance is in direct opposition to the cultural trends that prioritize subjective, community-based perspectives and often dismiss impartial reasons as irrelevant to our deeply held beliefs. This form of "subjectivism" suggests that reason seems hindered in challenging ingrained opinions, habits, and societal norms, making rational dialogue increasingly difficult.
Some, such as Richard Rorty have gone further, calling for the abandonment of all moral theories in favor of pragmatic narratives that reject objective truths altogether.
The tension between partiality and impartiality continues unsolved, and all the different kinds of theories—fully impartial, mixed, or fully partial or subjective—have both problems and important contributions.
We are interested in communications on a wide range of topics related to these themes, such as, but not limited to, the following:
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected] and [email protected].
A growing body of work has sought to bridge the gap between impartiality in ethics and politics and the irreducibly subjective aspects of human experience. These subjective aspects involve, to a great extent, the inescapable worth of our own ground projects, as well as “special” relationships we have with others—such as family, friends, or countrymen. In short, we cannot but act “partially” toward ourselves or to those close to us.
Thomas Nagel has been at the forefront of this effort, exploring how we can reconcile the demands of impartiality with the personal bonds, loyalties, and individual projects that shape our perspectives, but others such as Liam Murphy, Samuel Scheffler, and Susan Wolf, also wrote extensively on the question.
In stark contrast to this movement, many contemporary ethical and political theories, such as utilitarianism and Rawlsian liberalism, continue to insist on impartial ethics. Despite their differences, both frameworks require us to step back from our personal “biases” when deciding on the central principles of ethics or politics. This impartial stance is in direct opposition to the cultural trends that prioritize subjective, community-based perspectives and often dismiss impartial reasons as irrelevant to our deeply held beliefs. This form of "subjectivism" suggests that reason seems hindered in challenging ingrained opinions, habits, and societal norms, making rational dialogue increasingly difficult.
Some, such as Richard Rorty have gone further, calling for the abandonment of all moral theories in favor of pragmatic narratives that reject objective truths altogether.
The tension between partiality and impartiality continues unsolved, and all the different kinds of theories—fully impartial, mixed, or fully partial or subjective—have both problems and important contributions.
We are interested in communications on a wide range of topics related to these themes, such as, but not limited to, the following:
- Can “subjectivism” and “partiality” be justified?
- What constitutes ethically acceptable partiality?
- What is the importance of special relationships to ethics and politics?
- Which problems face moral theories that uphold full impartiality?
- What limits partiality and impartiality?
- Practical problems and solutions allow us to reconcile partiality and impartiality.
