Right, I agree that beneficence should be impartial. What I had in mind was that one can combine a moderate degree of impartial beneficence with significant partiality in other areas of oneās life (e.g. parenting). Thanks for flagging that this didnāt come through clearly enough.
re: ācentral life projectā, this is deliberately vague, and probably best understood in scalar terms: the more, the better. My initial aim here is just to get more people on board with adopting it as a project that they take seriously. I donāt think I can give a precise specification of where to draw the line. But also, I donāt really want to be drawing attention to the baseline minimum, because that shouldnāt be the goal.
Thanks Peter!
Right, I agree that beneficence should be impartial. What I had in mind was that one can combine a moderate degree of impartial beneficence with significant partiality in other areas of oneās life (e.g. parenting). Thanks for flagging that this didnāt come through clearly enough.
re: ācentral life projectā, this is deliberately vague, and probably best understood in scalar terms: the more, the better. My initial aim here is just to get more people on board with adopting it as a project that they take seriously. I donāt think I can give a precise specification of where to draw the line. But also, I donāt really want to be drawing attention to the baseline minimum, because that shouldnāt be the goal.
Thanks! Both of those approaches sounds justifiable to me.