The question lies in the moral framework of whether or not killing is a morally correct thing to do, even if it is to save lives. But then, of course, it seems likely that we can extend and generalise this pattern of argument, and thereby show that just about anyone has the reasons that a sensible morality says they have. This means that the distinction between whether an action is performed by me or by someone else is irrelevant. One traditional answer—much favoured by the utilitarians—is that these sorts of thoughts only go to show that the point of blame and punishment is prospective deterrence-based , not retrospective desert-based. Of course, if Jim refuses, then there is no special occasion, and Pedro here will do what he was about to do when Jim arrived, and kill them all. Moreland 1 In order to understand utilitarianism, it is important to learn about Jeremy Bentham, who is the influential philosopher represented utilitarianism the best.
Second example: Jim in the jungle: either Pedro kills twenty Indians or Jim kills one. And, he does his best to instill these values in the younger generation around him. Williams died of on 10 June 2003 while on holiday in Rome; he had been diagnosed in 1999 with , a form of cancer. Above all, utilitarianism is in trouble, according to Williams, because of the central theoretical place that it gives to the ninth thesis of the morality system—the thesis that we put on one side earlier, about impersonality. In: Becker Lawrence, Becker Charlotte.
The utilitarian reaches for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. That latter viewpoint does after all have the pre-eminent advantage of being mine, and the one that I already occupy anyway indeed cannot but occupy. Here I argue that opponents of a right of conscientious refusal concede too much in assuming such a right, overlooking that the professions in which conscientious refusal is invoked nearly always operate as public cartels, enjoying various economic benefits, including protection from competition, made possible by governments exercising powers of coercion, regulation, and taxation. According to the charge of self-indulgence, if an agent refuses to maximize aggregate utility because doing so would alienate that agent from his or her own projects, then that agent is either too selfish or too squeamish to do what that agent has a moral obligation to do. Alienation, Consequentialism and the Demands of Morality. Based on this explanation, the notion of personal projects is distinguished from competing sources of personal reasons and it is argued for the independence and irreducibility of personal projects.
The situation is rather one in which somebody asks him to do what they tell him to do namely commit a terrible crime: that of killing an innocent person or else they will do something very nasty, namely murder lots of people, including that one. If traits that do not seek to maximizes the good include habits of concern and loving behavior, as Railton suggests, they will, then an objective consequentialist need not be alienated from other people. Jim's refusal to kill one Indian does not compel Pedro to kill all of them, nor does Jim's compliance compel him to free the remaining Indians. However, defenders of his conception of integrity must admit that personal integrity does place one in the danger of having evil projects. In this paper, I am going to give a critique of hedonism and utilitarianism.
Moore, , Philosophy Now, 2003. Thus in the example involving Jim utilitarianism would not allow him to consider what his emotional and psychological states of being would be after he followed the option promoted by it, because these effects are thought to have little consequence to the utilitarian outcome. George says that he cannot accept this, since he is opposed to chemical and biological warfare. A man ends up in a South American town in front of a group of 20 inhabitants who had protested against the government and were about to be killed as punishment and to serve as warning. Nussbaum, , The New Rambler, 2015.
Thanks for your comment, Zach. But even if such a conception were available—and Williams argues repeatedly that it is not available for ethics, even if it is for science 1985 Ch. They are, necessarily, a long string of minor but very bad choices, that typically end in these kinds of impossible-situation horror stories. Notable ideas , , Sir Bernard Arthur Owen Williams, 21 September 1929 — 10 June 2003 was an English. However, if Jim failed to shoot the man, if negative responsibility holds firm, Jim too should feel bad because he would indirectly be killing twenty Native Americans. I'm not a student of philosophy, but I've thought about these things a bit because utilitarian philosophy has really crept in to popular thought.
Surely Williams intends to guarantee that the agent's Jim's choice will have a clear result either way. And why should it matter if we lose sight of that? I am inclined, therefore, to think that Utilitarianism cannot actually help George in this regard. Utilitarianism: For and Against pp. Essentially, Williams finds flaw in utilitarianism because it is overly committed to a strong doctrine of negative responsibility. Williams invites us to consider the case of Jim, Pedro, and the Indians.
What can be done to better this state of affairs? Action decisions occurred when utilitarian concerns dominated. It is thus, in the most literal sense, an attack on his integrity. The notion of a reason, he argues, is inextricably bound up with the notion of explanation. This may be an arbitrary from whatever deontological stance you're taking, but from the consequentialist stance many of your students seem to be taking, it is absolutely not arbitrary. One reason may be the more general belief that utilitarianism is inherently unable to cope with these problems, presumably because any account of them in terms of utility seems to deny that they are problems at all, to deny that differences between the conceptions of the good held by competing groups resist translation into a common utilitarian calculus.
Very little has been done to establish the validity of such measures. In Study 2, 144 college students were interviewed to further examine the roles of those involved. One might contend that personal integrity is not a human excellence, because it would be better for an agent with immoral projects to lack personal integrity. Are our intuitions about them different? We can say that Williams takes the utilitarian world-view to be absurd, because it requires agents to act on external reasons. That the doctrine of negative responsibility represents in this way the extreme of impartiality, and abstracts from the identity of the agent, leaving just the locus of causal intervention in the world—that fact is not merely a surface paradox. Supposing he is tasked with developing technologies that neutralize warheads, or inventing ways of defending against various forms of radiation, or building defensive technologies like detectors or sensors or long-range scanners or something? The notion that moral obligation is inescapable is undermined by careful attention to this concept of importance, simply because reflection shows that the notion of moral obligation will have to be grounded in the notion of importance if it is to be grounded in anything that is not simply illusory.
A collection of his essays, On Opera, was published posthumously in 2006, edited by Patricia Williams. The argument considered here maintains that outlaw states can have legitimate security interests and that transferring weapons to these states can be an appropriate way of promoting those interests. Of course you may argue that in that case you have to decide between your sister and people unknown to you. There are volumes of debates on this topic. And though the internal reasons thesis too is, in an important way, a negative thesis, it is arguably the cornerstone of a more robust, positive conception of our practical lives. This objection conflates moral integrity and personal integrity.