"Impartial - unable to perceive any promise of personal advantage from espousing either side of a controversy"

Ambrose Bierce’s definition of “impartial” drips with his characteristic cynicism, exposing the self-interest lurking behind the veil of objectivity. Rather than treating impartiality as an ideal of fairness or justice, Bierce suggests that it is simply a stance adopted by those who cannot discern any personal benefit from committing to either faction in a dispute. By framing impartiality through the lens of self-advantage, Bierce challenges the conventional reverence granted to neutrality and objectivity.

Such a perspective implies that supposed neutrality is often nothing more than the absence of personal stake rather than a product of virtue or principle. An individual who sees no potential gain from supporting either side remains detached not due to scrupulous fairness, but because their own interests are untouched by the outcome. Bierce’s insight accordingly casts doubt upon claims of disinterested judgment, hinting that many who profess impartiality might quickly abandon their stance if invested with a reason to care.

Furthermore, Bierce’s definition operates as a subtle critique of society’s overvaluation of “objectivity.” By suggesting that impartiality is simply the inability to find a personal advantage, he unmasks the self-serving calculations that can shape even the most seemingly unbiased perspectives. His words remind us to probe beneath surface-level declarations of neutrality, questioning whether detachment springs from virtue or mere indifference.

This view does not necessarily dismiss all claims to fairness, but it encourages skepticism toward the motives involved in taking, or eschewing, a side. Bierce, with typical dark humor, nudges us to examine our own impulses and incentives, prompting reflection on the deep role of self-interest in guiding both action and abstention. In the end, the definition warns against uncritical acceptance of impartiality as inherently noble, proposing instead that it may often arise from a lack of opportunity as much as from a love of justice.