A Critique of Utilitarianism

1
A Critique of Utilitarianism

• Bernard Williams

2
Two Examples (see 613)

• George and the CBW lab

• Jim and the Indians

• Is a Chemist
• Must support his family
• Job available at CBW lab
• George is morally opposed to CBW
• If George doesnt take the job, another, more
  zealous individual will

• Is a botanist
• Stumbles upon a mass-execution in progress
• Is offered the visitors priviledge 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

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 Pedros killing all of
  the protestors because Jim could have prevented
  much of it. Williams thinks this is unreasonable.

6
Remote Effects (psychological)

• 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 (see 616)
• 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
Study Questions

• Why is it a problem if Utilitarianism implies
  absolute negative responsibility?
• Is integrity an important part of the moral life?
  Why or why not?
• How would J.J.C Smart reply to Williams concerns?