In 'The error of impartiality', one of the essays in 'All things considered', Chesterton discusses the merits of impartiality. His first example comes from the selection of juries: only those people who have formed no opinion beforehand are qualified to serve in a jury. This may mean, Chesterton argues, that we select the more indifferent people instead of the more mentally alert. Provided that there are not set and definitive opinions formed, and there is no prejudice, a thoughtful man who took the trouble to 'deduce from the police report' may actually be a better juror then someone who did not care.
Another case were we assume impartiality is in agnostics. Chesterton argues that these people may not be impartial, but simply ignorant, or biased in favor of skepticism. He concludes that there is an 'absurd modern principle of regarding every clever man who cannot make up his mind as an impartial judge, and regarding every clever man who can make up his mind as a servile fanatic'.
No comments:
Post a Comment