"Act A ought to be done" logically entails "Any act relevantly or exactly similar to act A in its universal properties also ought to be done."
"Act A ought to be done" logically entails "Any act relevantly or exactly similar to act A in its universal properties also ought to be done."
Formal ethics is neutral on whether there's a logical entailment here.
If there IS an entailment, then violations of impartiality are violations of logical consistency.
"Act A ought to be done" logically entails "Any act relevantly or exactly similar to act A in its universal properties also ought to be done."
Formal ethics is neutral on whether there's a logical entailment here.
If there ISN'T an entailment, then violations of impartiality aren't violations of logical consistency -- but may be violations of "consistency" in some broader sense of the term. One might still accept universalizability (in its if-then form) and impartiality (as a way of life) -- but not on the basis of a logical entailment.