Impartiality, beneficence, and friendship
             Lawrence Blum feels that there are restrictions on impartiality when related to specific social roles such as professions pertaining to law, education and medicine. We have a role leaning more towards that of beneficence to friends however unrelated to the obligations of the professional responsibility. For one not to feel impartial in the direction of a stranger's well being is natural, for beneficence however does not mean that the interests of our friends do not come first.
             Mr. Blum argues that the practice of impartiality is of moral requirement. Generally with friendships we are not put into a situation where the regard of our friends and others would be necessary morally. For example, helping a friend first would not be a violation of impartiality because by my serving a friend would be entirely of human nature.
             Blum states that personal attachments could lead to a violation in the practice of impartiality leaving there no choice but to treat others unfairly. Case in point, one who is in a high position professionally could easily provide jobs for his or her friends or relatives whether or not they are as qualified for the job as one who applied. In some cases it is not wrong impartially to see how a friend is doing in the event that they are sick. There would be no benefit to a stranger if I asked him if he was feeling better simply because I would not be aware of his state in the first place.
             There are different kinds of impartiality given by those with specific social roles and responsibilities. A doctor has a duty of administering proper treatment to all patients. As does a judge in a civil trial to listen to the evidence and make her decision based on the information provided in a rational and fair method.
             I agree that there indeed is a difference between impartiality and beneficence. If I lived in an apartment building with my mother and three younge...