Impartiality is a moral principle that concerns all people equitably. It implies that there should be no discrimination and that all people should be treated equally regardless of their social class, race, or any feature that is generic. However, its clarity and boundaries cannot be effectively determined. According to the textbook, treatments should be similar, but it is also stated that there are circumstances that would not allow for the principle to be applied. The author gives an example of attending to a patient with an emergency case and other patients who may not be in need for immediate attention. In my own views, people should treat other children kindly, but should they go ahead and buy them clothes and feed them the same way as they would their own children? Can anyone treat his feminine boss as he would treat his wife? I find the principle very confusing and it would be really hard to draw a clear line where the rule should be applied.
With the abovementioned examples, it would mean that common sense and prevailing circumstances would gain advantage. It leaves the principle of impartiality in the hands of a person involved. Eventually, the person could take any of desired and subjectively rational to them actions. As a result, we can question whether there is any practical universal principle of impartiality. The scope through which partiality should be practiced is so wide and we may not be able to exhaust the number of scenarios that we can outline to mark the borders. In this case, I would recommend that instead of dwelling and emphasizing on impartiality, we teach morality on the basis of The Golden Rule, which states, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Personally, I may be willing to buy presents for other people’s children but not provide for all their needs. I would permit a doctor to attend to an emergency despite being sick myself. I would also not treat another person’s wife as I would treat mine.