ABSTRACT
This chapter explores several ways of interpretations. It aims to categorise the figures in view of constructing a certain number of points of reference permitting to distinguish their main forms. The chapter presents different proposals structured around several debates. It draws a comparison between two figures: the impartial spectator and the judicious spectator. These two figures were constructed after A. Smith and D. Hume. The judicious spectator, as proposed by Hume, more particularly on account of his analysis on social interaction, gives a filiation to the economic theory of altruistic behaviour. However, the emblematic figure of the ideal observer will be characterised by that of the impartial spectator. The chapter examines the controversy between J. Harsanyi and J. Rawls. This controversy appears as an extension of the opposition between Smith and Hume. The chapter also presents a new figure, who, in the tradition of the ethics of discussion, may be described as an impartial discussant.
