This paper deals with the question of whether the universalizability of moral judgment, and impartiality in ethics, would require us to expand our scope of moral consideration to cover all sentient beings, human or non-human, as de Lazari-Radek and Singer wish to establish in their new volume on Sidgwick and contemporary ethics. I will argue that the former two concepts, universalizability and impartiality, may not entail the third concept, the expanding circle. De Lazari-Radek and Singer’s arguments may presuppose their moral intuitions that are not entirely self-evident, and the philosophical foundation of ethics Sidgwick presented does not necessarily lead us to their version of utilitarianism.
