Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Morality is a complex phenomenon, and philosophers have debated its nature for a long time. Many theories examine ethics and how people make ethical decisions. It is especially interesting to discuss how people make choices when they involve the interests of people they are connected to in a meaningful way. This paper will discuss whether people should stay impartial when people they are close to are concerned.
One of the theories that discuss morality and behavior within a society is the Social Contract theory. Pioneered by Thomas Hobbes, the theory states that moral rules facilitate peaceful co-existence that benefits all (Rachels & Rachels, 2020). People agree to abide by those rules as they help govern society, and all its members gain advantages for following the social contract. It is rational to accept the contract and work together because it is more beneficial to act benevolently than to act egoistically (Rachels & Rachels, 2020). Thus, it is imperative to remain objective when making ethical decisions.
Impartiality discussed within the Social Contract theory, however, cannot always be applied to situations that involve ones children, parents, siblings, spouses, or other people connected to the person concerned in a significant way. The Social Contract Theory requires people to be unbiased and not to put their interests above the interests of others (Rachels & Rachels, 2020). Nevertheless, remaining objective when the situation concerns people you are connected to may contradict this requirement. It can be argued that it is in your interest to protect the well-being and interests of people close to you. One cannot be impartial if the people they are close to are in grave danger as the consequences of staying unbiased may negate the contract itself. Thus, being neutral will breach the social agreement as your interests will not be protected and disregarded in favor of the interests of others.
Overall, it is reasonable to follow the social contract and the rules established within it as acting benevolently and not egoistically benefits all parties involved. Nevertheless, it can be argued that remaining unbiased when the decision concern people close to you does not always bring the benefits of the social contract. There are certain limits, and one cannot stay neutral when people they have a meaningful connection with are in danger. In this case, impartiality will invalidate the whole purpose of the social contract.
Reference
Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2020). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw Hill Education.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.