(Click here to continue on the main path)

It may not be possible to achieve perfect impartiality, but that is no reason to discard the ideal. A perfectly safe automobile may be impossible, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn't try to build safer cars.

Surely Rawls is correct that we shouldn't trust the judgments we make when we are upset, angry, vindictive, and so on. And surely our own self interest often distorts our view of what would constitute a just distribution of things. Do you want only rich people or only poor to decide how high the income tax should be? Do you think that white segregationists, in the heat of passion, are closer to a just view of racial relations than people thinking calmly at a distance? My point is that I think we should slow down before rejecting impartiality as an ideal.

And consider this: Is it really impartiality that causes problems or is it impartiality poorly achieved? And another thought: Perhaps impartiality is something that each generation must redefine -- based on new ideas of what is relevant and what is not -- and struggle to achieve.

Maybe there is a way to make use of both a detached point of view and our actual experiences. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath.