Contact Form * Contact Form Container */ .contact-form-widget { width: 500px; max-width: 100%; marg


Email *

Message *

Making moral judgements can only be done by way of an incomplete impartiality.

As the tacit civil war simmers in the US Republicans v Democrats, left v right,
diversity v populism this bitterness is evident in Europe too and growing

Each side in the argument claim to be right 
but how can one be impartial

How socially close or distant we are to other people can influence our ability to be impartial in our moral judgements of them. 

What, then, is the best placement for a moral judge? 

Should we strive to distance ourselves equally from everybody, or is there virtue in closeness?

 Is there even such a thing as an ideal placement, point of view  to observe judge conclude or do we accept imperfection in our assessments

Certainly from the left I would argue against the temptation to specify an ideal placement for a moral judgement

For the positon of the theoretically idealjudge is practically unattainable and therefore ethically suspect. 

Rather than specifying an ideal position from which justified moral judgements can be made, we should embrace the fact that actual moral judges are always situated and thus only in possession of an incomplete impartiality, substituting openness and mutual critique for hegemonic theoretical justification.

No comments: