Examples Of Non Formal Impartiality

who concludes that ‘rational nature cannot be valuable in a Kantian world’. Actually, there are Kantians working on issues whether rationality could identify moral law.

According to Hill, aside from Korsgarrd’s objection to realism, there are mainly two doubts whether Kant implies value realism. The first doubt arises from epistemological concerns. Kant states that it is possible for all of us to possess moral knowledge; given that we construct value it is clearly plausible that we can know what is valuable. However, if value realism is correct, then our epistemic access to value is much more puzzling. In Hill’s view, Kant does find moral knowledge puzzling and holds that epistemology is compatible with realism. Kant appears to claim that

To provide an answer, consider this scenario: I have an over-abundance of resources and my neighbor is about to die from starvation due to his poverty. I am fully aware of my neighbor’s suffering and of the steady decline of my food resources. According to the narrow formal impartiality stance, which considers moral law as equivalent to logical coherency, I am not required to act to meet my neighbor’s need especially if I do not intend to accept charity in the future; this position appears completely rational. But what reason could I have for not feeding my neighbor? My reason cannot be a mere logical consistency, for if I am, indeed, indifferent about everything I would also be indifferent about relinquishing some of my wealth to feed my neighbor. Let us assume, then, that I am specifically indifferent about by neighbor’s suffering. In reality, even though I know that I could prevent my neighbor’s suffering by giving him some of my surplus, my real attitude is that I prefer holding on to my surplus rather than acting to save my neighbor from starvation. It is irrelevant whether his life has no value or is of minimal value to me. In neglecting to feed my neighbor, I show that I am partial to sustaining my over-abundance when compared with his

However, as Fairbanks argues equal concern for all would ultimately destroy the self:

The impartiality requires moral agents…focus on categorical uniformities rather than face up to the particular reality of each person involved. It becomes all too easy for the agent to ignore a particular person’s pain or loss. The impartial moral agent no longer hears the cries, perceives the tears, or acknowledges the injustice and harm done to others because her eyes are firmly fixed on impartial principles; simply, the impartial moral agent becomes a moral monster.

With regard to these controversies, Kant seems to advocate that the members of the moral community are to set aside their personal interests in consideration of the principles that should govern the moral community. For example, suppose that our community decides to ban the right to own and hold private food supplies in order to achieve the common good of eliminating hunger. As a result, everyone would be allowed to enter any household and eat whatever they need. This and other like moral quandaries raise the issue of how to morally balance the ultimate needs of humanity or community ends with private ends. Paul Guyer explains the possible systematic connection of these two seemingly competing