Notion Of Impartiality Research Articles

On the axiomatic approach to sharing the revenues from broadcasting sports leagues

We take the axiomatic approach to uncover the structure of the revenue-sharing problem from broadcasting sports leagues. We formalize two notions of impartiality, depending on the stance one takes with respect to the revenue generated in the games involving each pair of teams. We show that the resulting two axioms lead towards two broad categories of rules, when combined with additivity and some other basic axioms. We complement those results strengthening the impartiality notions to consider axioms of order preservation.

Comprehensive or Political Liberalism? The Impartial Spectator and the Justification of Political Principles

AbstractJohn Rawls raises three challenges – to which one can add a fourth challenge – to an impartial spectator account: (a) the impartial spectator is a utility-maximizing device that does not take seriously the distinction between persons; (b) the account does not guarantee that the principles of justice will be derived from it; (c) the notion of impartiality in the account is the wrong one, since it does not define impartiality from the standpoint of the litigants themselves; (d) the account would offer a comprehensive, rather than a political, form of liberalism. The narrow aim of the article is to demonstrate that Adam Smith's impartial spectator account can rise to Rawls's challenges. The broader aim is to demonstrate that the impartial spectator account offers the basis for a novel and alternative framework for developing principles of justice, and does so in the context of a political form of liberalism.

BBC Independence and Impartiality: The Case of the 1956 Suez Crisis

As the world’s oldest national broadcaster, The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is unique in its contribution to British life and its level of international influence. The BBC is well known for its historic core mission (to inform, educate and entertain) and commitment to the principles of independence and impartiality. Yet the definition and practical application of these tenets are far from clear-cut. Considered by some to be a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization, the BBC has been subjected to much criticism throughout its long history regarding its ability to resist State and corporate pressures. This article seeks to explore State pressures in the context of calls for national unity in times of crisis when tensions with the BBC are at their greatest. To this end, a qualitative analysis of the 1956 Suez Crisis is conducted and is linked to the decline of the British Empire. This study shows the limited interpretation of impartiality by the BBC at that time. Anthony Eden’s Conservative government fought a propaganda war at home and abroad in the build-up to military intervention. The BBC’s independence was ambiguous at best, although it emerged from the crisis with its reputation intact due to its insistence on the notion of impartiality.

What does impartiality mean in medico-legal psychiatry? An international survey

Medico-legal psychiatry is the field of forensic psychiatry that consists of reporting to criminal, civil and administrative authorities and testifying in courts of law. As a forensic science, medico-legal psychiatry is based on the principle of impartiality. However, the notion of impartiality is not clearly defined and can be understood in many different ways. The purpose of this study was to explore the meaning that expert psychiatrists attribute to this notion. Members of the forensic sections of the World Psychiatric Association, the European Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law were surveyed by e-mail using a vignette and a questionnaire. One hundred and thirty-one responses were received. When commenting on the case presented in the vignette, a large majority of respondents considered that the personal moral convictions of the doctor were the main factor likely to cast doubt on the impartiality of the expert, followed by past personal experience and the fact that the expert was the treating doctor of the examinee. In the answers to the questionnaire, 54% of participants considered that the question of impartiality was similar in both the inquisitorial and adversarial systems. Impartiality was considered by most participants as both an ethical and a legal concept. The main factors considered as likely to affect the impartiality of an expert were past personal experience, personal beliefs and perceptions, and the fact that the expert was the treating doctor of the examinee. Training in forensic psychiatry and past professional experience were considered to be the most important factors that could enhance the impartiality of an expert. When asked about their own definition, 70% of respondents defined impartiality as a choice specific to the expert, and 27% of participants defined impartiality as a result of external factors. The term ‘objectivity’ was used in 30% of responses. Results revealed a rather unified view of the issue of impartiality by medico-legal psychiatrists, irrespective of their country and practice conditions. The notions of honesty and striving for objectivity, which are emphasized in several guidelines of forensic psychiatry associations, were cited by many participants. Impartiality appears to be considered as a coherent concept in both normative and consequentialist ethics and represents a useful reference in the practice of medico-legal psychiatry.

From Humanitarian Needs to Border Control: Norwegian Media Narratives on Migration and Conceptions of Justice

ABSTRACT Migration is a topic that has frequently been present in political debates and the mass media in recent years, especially following the European and EU migration and refugee crisis. Newspaper debates in Norway presented different narratives with different conceptions of global justice. Migration is by definition a cross-border issue that has a direct effect on the interests of states as well as individuals, therefore the question of global justice is highly relevant. Three core media narratives were present: the humanitarian, the statist, and the EU integration narrative, which particularly highlights Norway as an integrated non-member of the EU. In the humanitarian narrative, a notion of impartiality of universal individual rights was prevalent, while in the statist narrative and to some extent in the EU integration narrative, a territorial and state-oriented conception of justice as non-domination was visible. Concerns about human rights were prevalent mainly in matters far away from Norway, but less so when the so-called migration crisis hit Norway directly.

Capability and habit

ABSTRACTIn his action theory, John Dewey makes use of the concept of capability to highlight the way human capacities depend on the environment and the character of an agent. In his capability approach, Amartya Sen likewise refers to the environment by discussing the role of conversion factors. Yet, he abstains from a discussion of character development, presumably in order to allow for a variety of conceptions of the good and ways in which characters can develop. In this paper, I develop the outlines of a pragmatist capability theory by enriching the core concepts of Sen’s capability approach with the Deweyan notions of habit and character. In this way, the role of the environment in the capability approach can be reaffirmed and supplemented by a notion of character development. Subsequently, I explore the implications of this framework for Sen’s notions of impartiality and freedom. The result is a pragmatist capability theory which builds on Sen’s conceptual framework and puts additional emphasis on character development and sensitivity to one’s environment.

The Portrayal of Islam and Muslims in Western Media: A Critical Discourse Analysis

With the realization of the promised global village, media, particularly online newspapers, play a significant role in delivering news to the world. However, such means of news circulation can propagate different ideologies in line with the dominant power. This, coupled with the emergence of so-called Islamic terrorist groups, has turned the focus largely on Islam and Muslims. This study attempts to shed light on the image of Islam being portrayed in Western societies through a Critical Discourse Analysis approach. To this end, a number of headlines about Islam or Muslims have been randomly culled from three leading newspapers in Western print media namely The Guardian, The Independent and The New York Times (2015). This study utilizes “ideological square” notion of Van Dijk characterized by “positive presentation” of selves and “negative presentation” of others alongside his socio-cognitive approach. Moreover, this study will take the linguistic discourses introduced by Van Leeuwen regarding “representing social actors and social practices” into consideration. The findings can be employed to unravel the mystery behind the concept of “Islamophobia” in Western societies. Besides, it can reveal how specific lexical items, as well as grammatical structures are being employed by Western media to distort the notion of impartiality.

Hobbesian Impartiality in Constitutional Law: Claims of Justice and Claims for Justice

Starting from Hobbes’s silver rule of impartiality “quod tibi fiery non vis, alteri ne feceris” the paper discusses the constitutional tensions between claims of justice, which ground their impartiality on the equality between men, regarding their dependence on basic needs; and claims for justice, which are also made in the name of impartiality, but are grounded on liberty and responsibility, resulting out of the common capability of men to pursue their interest as rational planners. Their difference, in terms of impartiality, is that the former present redistribution, for purposes of guaranteeing equal opportunities for all, as a matter of procedural impartiality, while the latter take distribution to be a matter of personal responsibility, falling primarily within the ambit of proportional equality and distributive justice. The paper discusses the corresponding constitutional forms and sociopolitical implications, depending on the prevailing conception of impartiality. Each notion of impartiality has its proper power structure, for the realization of the respective constitutional ends: the focus of the former is on legislation providing for social rights; the focus of the latter is on individual rights and judicial review. But the interplay between claims of justice and claims for justice cannot be settled once and forever. Constitutional democracy, to overcome their friction and tension without undermining political liberalism, has to disprove Hobbes’s pessimism on rhetoric and public deliberation; for this to happen, however, it is necessary to recognize that impartiality is more than a matter of prudence; rather it is a virtue associated with civility.

On the Argument for Jian’ai

In all three versions of the “Jian’ai” 兼愛 Chapter in the Mozi 墨子, variations of a central argument may be found. This argument proceeds by advancing a diagnosis for what causes the various evils that beset the world, and it is on this basis that the Mohists propose jian’ai as the solution. The study examines this main argument in some detail, with the aim of improving both our understanding of the Mohist ethical doctrine and also our appreciation of their argumentative practices. The study shows that distinct ethical injunctions of varying degrees of stringency can be derived from the argument, though they all embody an underlying notion of impartiality. This impartiality—while in many ways recognizably attractive to us—puts Mohist jian’ai in tension with certain notions regarding the ethical significance of special relations. In addition, the paper argues that the Mohists main argument for jian’ai contains a critical flaw.

Speciesism as a Moral Heuristic

In the last decade, the study of moral heuristics has gained in importance. I argue that we can consider speciesism as a moral heuristic: an intuitive rule of thumb that substitutes a target attribute (that is difficult to detect, e.g. “having rationality”) for a heuristic attribute (that is easier to detect, e.g. “looking like a human being”). This speciesism heuristic misfires when applied to some atypical humans such as the mentally disabled, giving them rights although they lack rationality. But I argue that it is not necessarily irrational or inconsistent to hold on to this heuristic rule, because we have to take time and knowledge constraints, uncertainty aversion and emotional costs into account. However, this “heuristic defense” of speciesism uses a target attribute (rationality) that has implications of disrespect towards some atypical humans. Therefore, based on notions of impartiality and compassion, I argue for a morally better target attribute: sentience (“having a sense of well-being”). “Being a vertebrate” is suitable as a corresponding heuristic attribute because it is easy to detect and has a strong correlation with the target attribute of sentience.

International Judges and Experts’ Impartiality and the Problem of Past Declarations

The impartiality of international judges, fact-finders and rapporteurs is a central issue for the international rule of law. Although much attention has been devoted to conflicts of interest and prior office, the status of previous declarations that might impinge on impartiality remains a complex matter whose practical and theoretical ramifications have not been wholly addressed. This article explores the conditions under which prior utterances might impugn the impartiality of international judicial or other international mandate holders involved in the administration of international law. It proposes to frame the problem not merely as it relates to a particular kind of international agent (judge, or expert, or rapporteur), but more broadly as involving an assessment of the notion of impartiality as such. The article begins by proposing a broad outline of the international impartiality regime, drawing on recent cases and practice. It then makes the argument that impartiality should be evaluated by examining a broad range of factors that may demonstrate the presence of bias, and that are not reducible to a simple legal formula. The article seeks to make a contribution to outlining these factors on the basis of existing case law and best practices.

The ethical task of the translator in the geo-political arena

This paper explores the relationship between the social, the ethical and the political in translation activity, based on military linguists’ accounts of their work in the context of the “war on terror”. In particular, it examines the social conditions, drawing on Bourdieu's concepts of habitus and field, that contributed to the construction of an “ethics of the translator” in the context of Guantánamo and Iraq. The paper also explores a number of relevant philosophical theorizations of human rights, politics and the law to explore the complex nature of the ethical. It argues for a translation ethics that is not guided by professional codes of ethics based on the notion of impartiality but that is instead informed by the nature of the ethical encounter itself – where “the right thing to do” cannot be calculated or predetermined, but can only ever be decided in the event itself.

Conflict and Universal Moral Theory

The solutions to moral problems offered by contemporary moral theories largely depend on how they understand pluralism. This article compares two different kinds of universal moral theories, liberal impartiality theory and discourse ethics. It defends the twofold thesis that (1) a dialogical theory such as discourse ethics is better equipped to give an account of pluralism than impartiality theory due to a more correct understanding of the nature of conflict, but that (2) discourse ethics cannot, contrary to what Jürgen Habermas claims, embrace the notion of impartiality connected to agent-neutrality. The article argues that pluralism reflects conflicts among values not only between but also within people and that discourse ethics can include both these dimensions since it recognizes the constitutive connection between deliberation and (moral) conflict. Thus, unlike impartiality theory, it can elucidate the transformative aspects of pluralism.

Loyalty, Utility, and Integrity in Casablanca: The Use of Film in Explicating Philosophical Disputes Concerning Utilitarianism

Can concepts such as loyalty and integrity remain intrinsically valuable personal traits even as we devote ourselves to that which requires the loyalty in the first place (the greater good)? Does utilitarian deliberation rest on too extreme a notion of impartiality—one that focuses exclusively on the consequences of actions, leaving people, in the words of Bernard Williams, “mere faceless numbers”? Using the film Casablanca as an extended analogy, this article attempts to reconcile the concept of loyalty to a cause, as described by Josiah Royce, with Williams's argument that personal integrity can remain part of even utilitarian thought processes.

Hume on Regulating Belief and Moral Sentiment

There have been numerous discussions in recent years of Hume's general point of view. Some of the issues raised have been (1) Is the general point of view the moral point of view? (2) Is the general point of view necessary in order for a judgment to count as a moral judgment? (3) Does the general point of view provide a justificatory perspective or is it a psychological explanatory concept that explains how moral judgments are made without necessarily offering a standard or normative basis for moral judgments? (4) If a general point of view yields some notion of impartiality, then how does it do so without introducing rationalistic elements that would undermine the sentimentalist approach Hume defends?1 In this paper I offer an interpretation of Hume's general point of view in morals as, employing a photographic analogy, a kind of focusing activity. It allows for strengthening of sentiments for those remote and, through contrariety, weakening of sentiments for those near such that we are moved to focus on those effects that are typical and, through conversing with others, arrive at general principles of praise or blame. I also examine the general point of view in comparison to what Hume has to say about regulation of belief. The comparison with belief sheds new light, I think, on how production of contrariety through the general point of view is regulative in morals. On my interpretation of the general point of view, it does not undermine Hume's sentimentalist thesis in morals, but rather is a device by which sentiment is properly aroused and directed. The comparison with the belief-regulating

Confronting social injustice as a mediator

AbstractUsing literature from several disciplines and reflections on the author's mediating experience, this article asserts that mediators should confront social injustice. The author suggests that the ethic of impartiality be joined by other guiding principles such as transformation, equality, relationship, and justice. Mediators, he contends, need to challenge power imbalances, appeal to moral authority, and encourage disputants to exercise self‐actualizing and cooperative forms of power. This is possible, he argues, when the mediator helps the perpetrator of an injustice subjectively experience the harm done to the victim. Such an approach necessarily implies a revision of our notion of impartiality.

Analysis of Nonagreements among Multiple Raters

A method is proposed for the analysis of nonagreements among multiple raters. The method is based on a notion of impartiality of nonagreeing assignments, and it aids in the detection of areas of possible confusion among different categories of a classification scale. A large-sample theory is derived for testing impartiality, and the methods are illustrated with published data on psychiatric classifications. Connections with kappa statistics for measuring rater agreement are also considered.