The Principle of Inclusion
Consider some of the accounts of impartiality that we have taken up.
Rawls models impartiality through the original position, as, in effect, ignorant partiality -- partiality to oneself, not knowing which self one will turn out to be.
The utilitarian takes impartiality to be achieved through occupying the view from nowhere, from no particular point of view, a God's Eye point of view that is neutral among all agents, and attempts to promote the best outcome overall across agents.
The principle of inclusion, by contrast, takes impartiality to be achieved through occupying the view from everywhere, from every particular point of view. It asks, in the formulation of institutions, laws, and acts, for each particular person, "What types of state coercion can a person reasonably accept if she embraces the core values of democracy -- and is motivated to find agreement with his or her fellow citizens? What types of state coercion can the same citizen reasonably reject?" (65)
If we ask this question of every single person, not behind the veil of ignorance but in all of their particularity and specificity, or at least of every representative person, and the proposed law, for example, is one that no one of these person's can reasonably reject, this is an indication that each person is treated under such a law as a free and equal person, without undue bias in favor of any of the others.
The utilitarian understands impartiality as achieved by abstracting away from particular points of view to a point of neutral that is neutral among them; the principle of inclusion understands impartiality as achieved by engaging with every particular point of view as a particular standpoint of a particular agent whose legitimate claims must be taken into account. It is impartiality achieved, in effect, not through abstraction, but through highly particular interaction.
Of course a great deal is involved in the unpacking of this question that is at the core of the principle of inclusion. Why ask separate questions about reasonable acceptance and reasonable rejection? Why assume that everyone is motivated to find agreement with each other person? What is the criterion for reasonableness of acceptance and rejection? But it is one of the most intriguing formulations you will find for implementing a broadly Kantian understanding of impartiality at the political level.
Comments
However, this approach to seeking these rights and upholding the core values of democracy is fallible because it requires a degree of human selflessness that can only be guaranteed if one believes that human nature is good. This does not appear to be Brettschneider’s approach, though, because his argument rests on the crux of “self-rule,” which is an individualistic, selfish value. It is one that seeks to maximize one’s individual autonomy and rights while refraining from infringing on others’ same autonomy and rights, which is distant from other communal approaches to justifications for government authority. The inclusion principle requires one to extend empathy when on precedent people act in their own self interest. This understanding is used to justify both an economic approach and Rawls’ veil of ignorance as principles to frame a just society. Neither requires extending empathy to others. Under Rawls’ veil of ignorance, rather than requiring empathy, it instead asks that one commits to the veil of ignorance and assumes the position of the least advantaged individual as themselves. If you were to be the least advantaged person in a society, is this a society that you would be willing to accept? This is far more persuasive because it only begs for a perspective of selfishness, which is far more achievable than one that requires empathy.
What is the justification of requiring empathy without the belief that human nature is good? Why would people who are more advantaged or already in a position of power seek to “reconcile competing interests” when they can simply use their position to override a need to compromise? What motivations does anyone have to seek a “generalized perspective in which their interests are interchangeable with those of other persons” if their highest value is self-rule?
(had similar questions so posting it as a comment! :) )