At the outset, we recall that Hooker’s second assessment asserts that impartial benevolence serves as a direct guide to facilitate decisions about what we ought to do. Hooker states,
I mean impartial benevolence as the direct and sole determiner of everyday practical decisions. By impartial benevolence, I mean an equal concern for the good of each. And by equal concern for the good of each, I mean treating a benefit or harm to any one individual as having the same moral importance as the same-size benefit or harm to any other individual.
As I understand it, Hooker’s view resembles a broad formalistic understanding of Kantian impartiality given that he requires equal concern for all in a pure formal sense. However, as Fairbanks argues equal concern for all would ultimately destroy the self:
The impartiality …show more content…
Rather, we are directed to consider the common good, the result of which may mean the denial of our personal good. It may well be that the interests of the common good might not harmonize with our personal interests.
This interpretation is closer to the Rousseauian version of impartiality where stealing is impermissible because the will of the majority prohibits such action. Therefore, Rousseauian impartiality forces us to assume a view of the good that requires us to abstract our closest personal interests. Williams, in my opinion, provides a compelling explanation of this abstraction in terms of the indifference resulting from an impartial standpoint:
The moral point of view is specially characterized by its impartiality and its indifference to any particular relations to particular persons, and … moral thought requires abstraction from particular circumstances and particular characteristics of the parties, including the agent, except in so far as these can be treated as universal features of any morally similar
I mean impartial benevolence as the direct and sole determiner of everyday practical decisions. By impartial benevolence, I mean an equal concern for the good of each. And by equal concern for the good of each, I mean treating a benefit or harm to any one individual as having the same moral importance as the same-size benefit or harm to any other individual.
As I understand it, Hooker’s view resembles a broad formalistic understanding of Kantian impartiality given that he requires equal concern for all in a pure formal sense. However, as Fairbanks argues equal concern for all would ultimately destroy the self:
The impartiality …show more content…
Rather, we are directed to consider the common good, the result of which may mean the denial of our personal good. It may well be that the interests of the common good might not harmonize with our personal interests.
This interpretation is closer to the Rousseauian version of impartiality where stealing is impermissible because the will of the majority prohibits such action. Therefore, Rousseauian impartiality forces us to assume a view of the good that requires us to abstract our closest personal interests. Williams, in my opinion, provides a compelling explanation of this abstraction in terms of the indifference resulting from an impartial standpoint:
The moral point of view is specially characterized by its impartiality and its indifference to any particular relations to particular persons, and … moral thought requires abstraction from particular circumstances and particular characteristics of the parties, including the agent, except in so far as these can be treated as universal features of any morally similar