Yesterday’s post brought up some implications of impartiality in the utilitarian sense of the term. A theme that runs through the posts on this site but not yet stated in these terms, is that nearness counts, relationship counts.
We’ve seen it in the discussion of the stranger in the Hebrew bible. We’ve seen it in the analysis of the grammar of the “love your neighbor” verses. I’ve argued that the source texts of the Golden Rule conversation do not actually universalize the injunction to “love”. I’ll have more to add to that topic later but I want to look back at the impartiality issue now and bring out another point.
In the case of giving all of my available resources to an aid agency, which is the point drawn from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article quoted in yesterday’s post, the implication is that I need to look for a means to funnel my resources to the greatest number of persons in need.
In almost all cases, a person living in a relatively affluent Western environment will have to find an intermediary to act in his place in this effort. How else is he to get resources to those whose living standards can be so significantly raised by relatively small amounts?
Again, use the example of a sub-Saharan Africa population where we might be able to substantially affect hundreds of persons for the same amount that might meaningfully affect only a few in a higher cost area.
If I want to affect the African afflicted I need to find a third party to manage the process for me.
But consider this situation. My brother is ill. He has lost his job because of his illness and cannot feed his family. He is in danger of losing his house. He asks for my financial help.
Do I say to him: “For the money you need to save your house I could pay to house 100 families in Africa, so I can’t help you?”
What if a person who is not a relative, but a friend, were to be in the same situation? What about the relative of a friend?
Am I justified in showing partiality to those with whom I have a direct connection?
What about the beggar on the street corner. The cost of a meal for him might buy meals for 100 in Africa. Do I turn aside from him and send my check to the aid agency?
Going back to the bible again. The examples we are given tell us to provide for the stranger “in our midst”; to love our “neighbor” or our “friend” or our “brother”.
Some Christian Golden Rule scholars have suggested that the innovation brought by Jesus to the “love thy neighbor” injunctions found in the Hebrew bible was to universalize and extend that statement to all mankind or possibly to all living things.
(I’ve argued elsewhere against that interpretation and I’ll have more to say on that later. But it’s also interesting to note that the scholars of the Jesus Seminar do not see Matthew 7:12 as being an actual teaching of the historical Jesus.)
Impartiality is a problem when utilitarianism is considered at the level of individual interaction. Recall that it was originally considered as a basis for a penal code; a set of rules applying to all members of a sizeable but defined group.
Aggregation is another problem that utilitarianism is acknowledged to have. By aggregation we mean that the appropriateness of an act is to be gauged on the basis of the aggregate impact on a defined group as opposed to the impact on specific persons directly involved.
If I should be truly impartial and be guided by the principle of aggregation, I should tell my brother that there are others more needy than he, and to turn away from the beggar that stands before me.
Or do I?
What if I am in some way uniquely able to help; that I am the only alternative available to the person in need?
Maybe my brother can apply for aid through some social service agency but the process will take weeks and his family has no other access to immediate resources. If I am his only practical source of assistance, does the impartiality requirement still hold. Or do we redefine the idea of the “greatest good”?
Maybe the beggar in front of me has access to a soup kitchen but that is closed until morning. There is no other public assistance available that he can draw on at that moment. Do I really turn away or do I recognize my unique ability to provide the immediate help needed?
These cases point to the commonsense conclusion that conditions and relationships matter in making ethical decisions. Impartiality and aggregation make sense when applied to the creation of uniform policies to be applied in the context of large groups. In such cases, there must be uniformity and rule-based processes that are drawn on for decisions affecting all members of the group.
But between and among individuals, acting as individuals, we must look at things differently.
©Charles R. Lightner