Tristan Moyle at Aeon Magazine:
In contemporary parlance, the most common framework that ancient moral philosophy operated within is known as ethical partialism. For the ethical partialist, our relationships determine the reasons we have to act (or refrain from acting). That is why the question ‘Who belongs?’ is so important: the answer informs us about the ethical relationships in which we are implicated and by which we are obligated.
This ancient way of thinking about ethical matters is comprehensively rejected by dominant forms of modern moral philosophy. Whether deontological or consequentialist, the underlying ethical framework is impartialist. For the impartialist, factoring in personal relationships when deciding what to do is to introduce prejudice, parochialism and bias into one’s moral thinking. The question ‘Who belongs?’ is rejected as a legitimate starting point. For the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham, the essential question is rather ‘Can they suffer?’ Whether I have a relationship to the being is morally irrelevant. Objectivity in one’s moral thinking requires strict neutrality. That is what justice is thought to demand.
more here.
Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.