On Partiality

Ezio Di Nucci

Bern, 13.9.13

Keller’s view

Keller’s “main argument”

Keller’s “main problem”

my critique

1)the phenomenology of partiality does not speak in favour of Keller’s INDIVIDUALS VIEW;

2)Keller’s “main problem” remains unsolved in so far as his INDIVIDUALS VIEW can only be distinguished from a primitivist impartialist account (plus social and anthropological facts) by denying (1) above.

the phenomenology of partiality

Preliminary dialectical point

Can phenomenological considerations even be an argument?

Can phenomenological considerations ever be more than just prima facie reasons in favour of some view?

The phenomenology of partiality is neither necessary nor sufficient in an argument for the Individuals View.

“one thought too many”

“one thought too many”

IMPARTIALIST: “that it was his wife and that in situations of this kind it is permissible to save one’s wife”;

PARTIALIST: “that it was his wife” (“fully spelled out”).

“that it was his wife”

1) Alone the value of the person (INDIVIDUALS VIEW);

2) Alone the value of the person’s relationship to us or her place in our ground projects (RELATIONSHIPS AND PROJECTS VIEW);

3)The value of the person within a particular context, one which includes relevant properties (“his wife”).

“that it was his wife”

What sorts of thoughts will the man in Williams’ example have?

Towards the stranger: “Poor woman, that’s a horrible way to die”; “I wonder if she has any children”; “I hope she has at least had a good life” (general, indeterminate thoughts).

What sorts of thoughts will the man in Williams’ example have?

Towards his wife: particular memories (the day we met; the day we moved in together; the day our first child was born; the day we married); particular plans (the piano we are going to buy; how she is looking forward to start work after the holidays; “our son is starting nursery”); particular traits (her smile; the way we cook together; her dialect; how she loves her job).

one thought too few

These are a few examples of the sorts of things that relationships are made of;

at least some of these sorts of things would go through every husband’s mind on that pier;

and I wonder whether an husband who didn’t have any of these thoughts would still have a reason of partiality to save his own wife.

one thought too few

I submit that the phenomenology that I have attributed to the man on the pier with regards to his wife does not support the INDIVIDUALS VIEW; indeed, it may be argued that – if such phenomenology supports any of the three views - it supports the RELATIONSHIPS VIEW.

Further problem

one thought too few

A)Person

B)Person + Wife

C)Person + Wife + Impartialist (Utilitarian)-Rule

The relational property WIFE seems to be crucial, at least phenomenologically.

my critique

1)the phenomenology of partiality does not speak in favour of Keller’s INDIVIDUALS VIEW;

2)Keller’s “main problem” remains unsolved in so far as his INDIVIDUALS VIEW can only be distinguished from a primitivist impartialist account (plus social and anthropological facts) by denying (1) above.

The Big Questions...if a tyrant were to order one to do something base, having

one’s parents and children in his power, and if one did the action they were to be saved, but otherwise would be put to death... (Aristotle’s NE, 1110a5-20)

Unwept, without a friend, Unwed, and whelmed in woe,

I journey on the road that open lies. No more shall it be mine (O misery!)

To look upon the holy eye of day, And yet, of all my friends,  Not one bewails my fate,  

No kindly tear is shed. (Antigone, 1012)