==Impartiality== 

 Fear and loathing...well, anyone who likes Hunter S. Thompson is OK by me. Anyway, getting back to your one question on impartiality.  Berumen says that impartiality is what give morality its wheels, for it is what extends our common sense principles or rational prohibitions (don't harm oneself without a reason) to other people without prejudice (as would be the case if we grounded it in, say, compassion, for, falling short of the few Mother Theresas of the world, most of us don't have compassion towards everyone. Reason and rationality do not require impartiality, neither do they prohibit it.  Impartiality is not a moral concept, by itself, for one could imparitally administer the rules of a concentration camp or any number of horrible venues.  Impartiality simply means (according to him) that we do not apply the rules or principles by which any particular circumstance is being judged (e.g., a coin toss, a legal proceeding, a game, an athletic event, etc.) in a manner that favors one outcome over another, even when that outcome would favor or penalize ourselves or someone about whome we cared. It does not mean we are without a personal bias, only that we must set any bias aside in judging the rules. Thus, if we apply our rational prohibitions to others, impartially, we do not do so in a manner that favors one outcome over another, even when doing so would be to our disadvantage.  He contends that fairness, a related concept, is not an intrinsically moral concept without having considered other principles.  Fairness, as in fairly judging darts, simply means we apply the rules consistently, equally, and without bias.  But we can also apply a set of rules for ritual sacrifice fairly, so in and of itself, fairness is not a moral principle. Berumen therefore argues that impartiality, or fairness, becomes a moral principle only when we combine the concept with other ideas, such as our rational requirements not to do harm to ourselves. So, if impartiality is not required by reason or rationality (reason does not dictate our ends, and there is nothing irrational about being partial), why be impartial? Berumen says at bottome one must take the Humean position, because it comports with our passions to do well by others, etc., and perhaps because of Sidgwick's intuition that the unviverse, after all, does not seem to "prefer" one person's interests over another's, a kind of cosmic impartiality (he meant this as a simile of course, not that the universe has feelings or perspectives). Anyway, I trust this finds you well and that this, whether convincing or not, at least helps explains his idea.