A Definition of Impartiality: Philosophy Forums

A Definition of Impartiality

ade90212
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2005
Location: Ex-Exeter

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 361

Posted 11/27/06 - 10:10 AM: Subject: A Definition of Impartiality	#1
I'm hoping that this definition is fairly uncontroversial but then again I've been wrong before... To be impartial with respect to a given decision is to only take into account those factors which are (objectively) relevant to that decision. Now, I'm aware that this is a formal definition and that what counts as relevant to the decision will depend entirely on the context and that there will be disagreements over what counts as relevant and what objectivity is. However, does anyone disagree with this formal characterisation of impartiality? Can you suggest a better one?
"Philosophers often behave like little children who scribble some marks on a piece of paper at random and then ask the grown-up "What's that?" - It happened like this: the grown-up had drawn pictures for the child several times and said: "this is a man", "this is a house", etc. And then the child makes some marks too and asks: what's this then?" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value

sensabile
Hungry Mogwai

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England

Total Topics: 132
Total Posts: 4312

Posted 11/27/06 - 10:19 AM:	#2
What's a formal definition? And why are you after a definition of impartiality anyway? Your definition seems altogether too complicated for a relatively simple concept: i.e. "a lack of bias".
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

ade90212
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2005
Location: Ex-Exeter

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 361

Posted 11/27/06 - 10:43 AM:	#3
sensabile wrote: And why are you after a definition of impartiality anyway? Doing an essay on it and I want to get the concept clear in my head. Your definition seems altogether too complicated for a relatively simple concept: i.e. "a lack of bias". Ok. But isn't being biased taking into account things that aren't relevant to the situation at hand?
"Philosophers often behave like little children who scribble some marks on a piece of paper at random and then ask the grown-up "What's that?" - It happened like this: the grown-up had drawn pictures for the child several times and said: "this is a man", "this is a house", etc. And then the child makes some marks too and asks: what's this then?" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value

sensabile
Hungry Mogwai

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England

Total Topics: 132
Total Posts: 4312

Posted 11/27/06 - 10:52 AM:	#4
ade90212 wrote: Ok. But isn't being biased taking into account things that aren't relevant to the situation at hand? I don't see how that's possible. For instance, you wouldn't choose ham because you like tequila. Perhaps you could provide a context.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

ade90212
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2005
Location: Ex-Exeter

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 361

Posted 11/27/06 - 12:17 PM:	#5
sensabile wrote: I don't see how that's possible. For instance, you wouldn't choose ham because you like tequila. Your getting it the wrong way round. If you did choose ham because you liked tequila then (unless you thought that this particular ham complemented tequila nicely) you would be taking into account something that isn't relevant. (I'm not sure this is necessarily bias though, becausee in your example there is no putative link between the ham and the tequila). What I was really thinking was an example more along the lines of having to distribute some goods. To be biased is to take into account factors which are not relevant to the issue at hand, for example sex or race. In this case the factors that are relevant are desert and bias. The impartial view is the one free of this sort of bias.
"Philosophers often behave like little children who scribble some marks on a piece of paper at random and then ask the grown-up "What's that?" - It happened like this: the grown-up had drawn pictures for the child several times and said: "this is a man", "this is a house", etc. And then the child makes some marks too and asks: what's this then?" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value

sensabile
Hungry Mogwai

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England

Total Topics: 132
Total Posts: 4312

Posted 11/28/06 - 03:08 AM:	#6
ade90212 wrote: What I was really thinking was an example more along the lines of having to distribute some goods. To be biased is to take into account factors which are not relevant to the issue at hand, for example sex or race. In this case the factors that are relevant are desert and bias. The impartial view is the one free of this sort of bias. I don't follow. Could you provide an example?
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.