  Finally, Sidgwick might be claiming that my point of view, like an impartial point of view, is non-arbitrary.  But there are other points of view, such as that of my species, family or country.  Sidgwick finds them arbitrary.  It is hard to see why my point of view, and an impartial point of view, are non-arbitrary, while anything in between is arbitrary.  For example, in favour of my point of view, Sidgwick could note that I am an individual rather than a hive-member. But I am a member of various groups as well.  And if my being an individual is important, this cuts against the importance of taking up an impartial point of view just as it cuts against the importance of taking up the point of view of various groups.  Similarly, if the impartial point of view is defended as non-arbitrary because it makes no distinctions, both the point of view of various groups and my individual point of view are suspect.