Definition of Impartial

Title

Subjectivity, impartiality and Ethics

Subjectivity, impartiality and Ethics While it is debated as to whether or not we can obtain pure impartiality, I'd like to attempt to submit a definition of what I mean by "impartial". I could use the dictionary, but words often take on a personal meaning. Ironic, really, that I'm offering a subjective definition of impartial. A thing can be said to be impartial if it fits, consistently, within a larger and falsifiable framework or explains the operations of that framework with greater clarity. Multiple subjects must be able to perceive, and understand, this relationship between object and framework. The trouble with non-natural philosophy is that one has to rely on axioms (or bullshit - they're really the same) to establish one's position. In making my argument for a definition of 'impartial', I now have to create supporting arguments (likely without end) to build up this framework. And thus, religion called out to some. "Take it on faith" is easier, but less intellectually stimulating. A) A thing fits, consistently, within a larger and falsifiable framework OR it explains the operations of that framework with greater clarity. B) Multiple subjects must be able to perceive, and understand, this relationship between object and framework. C) The thing is impartial. Premise A, Dissected First, “Consistently”. By this, I mean simply that it fits in with other empirical studies, experiments, theories, etc. For example, it was once sensible to conclude that the Earth was flat based on the available evidence (if one didn’t look too far). This was inconsistent with the reality revealed by exploring the cosmos, as well as experiments mapping the lengths of shadows during different parts o...

... middle of paper ...

... the individual’s survival subservient to that in cases where they might conflict. b) In order to ensure this priority, individuals should have access to the resources needed to sustain the greatest number of members of the species. c) All transactions between individuals shall be conducted without force, coercion or deception. d) Punishments for a violation of ethics should be in equal proportion to the crime committed, though not always literally so. e) If an individual attempts to violate the preceding premises - through depriving others of resources, through force or coercion or deception - the same shall be rendered unto him or her. And so on, with a bunch of if statements, exceptions, etc. It’d take a very long time to map it out, but it’s essentially a bunch of ‘gates’ through which a subjective-ethical-question would have to pass before its final evaluation.