1 / 8

A Critique of Utilitarianism

A Critique of Utilitarianism. Bernard Williams. Two Examples:. Is a Chemist Must support his family Job available at CBW lab George is morally opposed to CBW If George doesn’t take the job, another, more zealous individual will. Is a botanist Stumbles upon a mass-execution in progress

laith-carpenter
Download Presentation

A Critique of Utilitarianism

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Critique of Utilitarianism Bernard Williams

  2. Two Examples: • Is a Chemist • Must support his family • Job available at CBW lab • George is morally opposed to CBW • If George doesn’t take the job, another, more zealous individual will • Is a botanist • Stumbles upon a mass-execution in progress • Is offered the “visitor’s privilege” of killing one of the protestors himself; if he does, the other 19 will be set free • If he does not, all 20 will be killed by Pedro • Jim is morally opposed to killing George and the CBW lab Jim and the Indians

  3. Point one: Ease of decision • Williams contends that this is a minor point, but it is at least odd that both George and Jim are faced with difficult moral decisions, but that Utilitarianism gives clear and obvious answers for these cases.

  4. Negative Responsibility • Negative Responsibility holds that people are just as culpable for what they fail to prevent as they are for what they actively do. • Example: A is just as guilty for failing to prevent B from pushing C off a cliff as if A had pushed C off a cliff. • If absolute negative responsibility is unreasonable, and if Utilitarianism requires absolute negative responsibility, then Utilitarianism is unreasonable.

  5. Negative Responsibility • In the George and Jim cases, the Utilitarian is asking us to hold George responsible for what the more zealous person would do should George decline the job. Williams thinks this is unreasonable. • In the Jim case, the Utilitarian is asking us to hold Jim responsible for Pedro’s killing all of the protestors because Jim could have prevented much of it. Williams thinks this is unreasonable.

  6. Remote Effects • Assume Jim kills one of the protestors to save 19 and despite the gratitude of the 19, feels terrible about killing the one. • This introduces a fork: • If the utilitarian can consider this feeling as legitimate, then our arbitrary prejudices and squeamishness has a strong influence on our moral decision-making, and this seems wrong • If the utilitarian dismisses these reactions as irrational or non-utilitarian, then we are faced with the unpleasant consequence that the utilitarian ought to like killing (for example) when the conditions favor it. This seems wrong too.

  7. Integrity • Both the George and Jim cases require their subjects to give up on their personal moral projects whenever circumstances demand it. This is the opposite of Integrity. Integrity requires that people hold to their considered moral judgments. • If integrity is a genuinely important part of moral life, and if utilitarianism is incompatible with integrity, then utilitarianism is incompatible with moral life.

  8. Some Questions: • Why is it a problem if Utilitarianism implies negative responsibility? • Is integrity an important part of the moral life? Why or why not? • How would an act utilitarian reply to Williams’ concerns?

More Related