Sense of impartiality

The distribution of indivisible good in a society has social implications on individual behavior. In this paper, I present a model of choice which permit the quantification of the sense of impartiality. This model has implication in the choice of a winner of an indivisible good among a group of eligible individuals

An African perspective on the partiality and impartiality debate: Insights from Kwasi Wiredu's moral philosophy

In this article, I attempt to bridge the gap between partiality and impartiality in moral philosophy from an oft-neglected African perspective. I draw a solution for this moral-theoretical impasse between partialists and impartialists from Kwasi Wiredu's, one of the most influential African philosophers, distinction between an ethic and ethics. I show how an ethic accommodates partiality and ethics impartiality. Wiredu's insight is that partialism is not concerned with strict moral issues

Unmasking Central Asia's neoliberal judges

Despite claims of impartiality, judges in Central Asia often incorporate neoliberal economic and moral values into their judgements on illegal settlements

Impartiality, Close Friendships and the Confucian Tradition

This article explores the relationship between friendship and morality. Two ideas have been influential in the history of moral philosophy: the impartial standpoint and close friendship. These two perspectives on thought and action can conflict, however, and such a case is presented here. In an attempt to resolve these tensions, and understand the assumption that gives rise to it, I explore an alternative conception of moral conduct and friendship suggested by early Confucian thought. Within this account, moral conduct is that which aims at harmony, understood as the appropriate blending of different elements. This suggests a conception of friendship that realizes harmony through a focus on shared activities, and the quality of interaction achieved between people as they participate in shared social events. This account offers a novel way of conceptualizing friendship, which also avoids the tension between the impartial standpoint and close friendship

Natural and artificial impartiality

Under the influence of social contract theory, political philosophers typically assume that it is the job of participants in, and only participants in, a given scheme of social cooperation to determine how it is to be run. Yet since participants in a given scheme are always biased, the formulation of fair principles or policies requires that they adopt an imagined impartial perspective—which I term artificial impartiality. John Rawls’s appeal to the original position is the classic example of such artificial impartiality; Adam Smith’s appeal to an impartial spectator has recently been interpreted along similar lines. Smith’s impartial spectators, however, are real more often than they are imaginary; Smith believes that with regard to most conflicts in which we are not participants most of us are naturally impartial. This essay argues that an easy way to improve theorizing about justice is to shift the focus from participant perspectives (including their imagined, artificial constructs of impartiality) to the perspective of naturally impartial spectators. While artificial impartiality must continue to play an important role in political philosophizing, it will work more effectively in conjunction with greater use of natural impartiality

The Impartial Observer Theorem of Social Ethics

Following a long-standing philosophical tradition, impartiality is a distinctive and determining feature of moral judgments, especially in matters of distributive justice. This broad ethical tradition was revived in welfare economics by Vickrey, and above all, Harsanyi, under the form of the so-called Impartial Observer Theorem. The paper offers an analytical reconstruction of this argument, using a simple mathematical formalism, as well as a conceptual critique of each its premisses.Utilitarianism, Impartiality, Sympathy, Von Neumann- Morgenstern Utility Theory, Subjective Probability.

Is Fairness in the Eye of the Beholder? An Impartial Spectator Analysis of Justice

A popular sentiment is that fairness is inexorably subjective and incapable of being determined by objective standards. This study, on the other hand, seeks to establish evidence on unbiased justice and to propose and demonstrate a general approach for measuring impartial views empirically. Most normative justice theories associate impartiality with limited information and with consensus, i.e., a high level of agreement about what is right. In both the normative and positive literature, information is usually seen as the raw material for self-serving bias and disagreement. In contrast, this paper proposes a type of impartiality that is associated with a high level of information. The crucial distinction is the emphasis here on the views of impartial spectators, rather than implicated stakeholders. I describe the quasi-spectator method, i.e., an empirical means to approximate the views of impartial spectators that is based on a direct relationship between information and consensus, whereby consensus refers to the level of agreement among actual evaluators of real world situations. Results of surveys provide evidence on quasi-spectator views and support this approach as a means to elicit moral preferences. By establishing a relationship between consensus and impartiality, this paper seeks to help lay an empirical foundation for welfare analysis, social choice theory and practical policy applications.Justice; fairness; impartial spectator

A dialog on quantum gravity

The debate between loop quantum gravity and string theory is sometimes lively, and it is hard to present an impartial view on the issue. Leaving any attempt to impartiality aside, I report here, instead, a conversation on this issue, overheard in the cafeteria of a Major American University.Comment: 20 page

A path to purposive formalism: interpreting Chapter III for judicial independence and impartiality

This paper queries which method of interpreting Chapter III of Australia\u27s Constitution can best achieve the independence and impartiality of the federal judicature.AbstractThe interpretation of the separation of federal judicial power derived from Chapter III of the Constitution is as hotly debated as it is fundamentally important. Two key viewpoints have emerged in this debate, formalism and functionalism. A formalist test focusing on definitional characteristics governs the permissible powers of federal courts. A functionalist test looking to whether a power is incompatible with institutional independence and integrity limits the powers of State courts and of judges personae designatae. A rare point of consensus between the two viewpoints, and the central pillar of my critique, is that Chapter III is purposive and should be interpreted to achieve judicial independence and impartiality. This paper queries which method of interpretation can best achieve the independence and impartiality of the federal judicature. The analysis highlights the inherent strengths and weaknesses of each approach and ultimately leads to the identification of a preferred approach I call ‘purposive formalism’. Purposive formalism is a two-tiered method harnessing the strict formalist framework and a compatibility test. It is proposed as a legitimate and significant step forward in the interpretation of Chapter III to achieve the independence and impartiality of the federal judicature

The Economic Effects of Judicial Accountability. Some Preliminary Insights.

Judicial independence is not only a necessary condition for the impartiality of judges, it can also endanger it: judges that are independent could have incentives to remain uninformed, become lazy or even corrupt. It is therefore often argued that judicial independence and judicial accountability are competing ends. In this paper, it is, however, hypothesized that they are not necessarily competing ends but can be complementary means towards achieving impartiality and, in turn, the rule of law. It is further argued that judicial accountability can increase per capita income through various channels one of which is the reduction of corruption. First tests concerning the economic effects of JA are carried out drawing on the absence of corruption within the judiciary as well as data gathered by the U.S. State Department as proxies. On the basis of 75 countries, these proxies are highly significant for explaining differences in per capita income.Judicial Independence; judicial accountability; rule of law; economic growth; corruption; constitutional political economy.