Essay on Bernard Williams and Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is the concept that “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” In summation, the consequentialist theory states, in reference to Dr. Peetush, that morally “good” actions are those that promote “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” For instance, if a utilitarian were faced with the dilemma of having to kill an innocent for the welfare of 100 other innocents, he would justify this action as morally correct as it, according to Hedonic Calculus, quantitatively produces the most benefit for the largest amount of people. Although utilitarianism is seemingly attractive, it is difficult to digest, as there are several key fallacies that unhinge the theory. This paper will criticize utilitarianism via Louis P. Pojman’s “no-rest” and “justice” objections and the utilitarian’s respective rebuttals, followed by further defense against utilitarianism.

To apply utilitarianism to this ethical controversy one has to evaluate which option would benefit society

The Integrity Objection is a counter-argument to consequentialism first proposed by Bernard Williams in 1973. It problematizes consequentialist moral philosophy on the grounds that it forces an agent to forfeit their ‘integrity’ – their character and personal values – in order to follow an impartial moral calculus. When an agent performs an action which is morally correct according to a consequentialist calculation, they may experience guilt, sadness, or other negative emotions despite the moral rightness of what they did. Utilitarianism considers such feelings irrelevant because they are irrational. However, as Williams points out, “to regard those feelings from a purely utilitarian point of view… is to lose a sense of one’s moral

Utilitarianism focuses on the idea that, “the highest principle or morality is to maximize happiness, the overall balance of pleasure over pain.” The chapter begins with a story about four English sailors who became stranded at sea and who carefully used up all their resources before making a horrific choice between life and death. Finally when there were no other options Dudley, the captain, suggested who should die in order to save the rest of the men, he motioned to another male that they would choose Parker, the seventeen year old orphan cabin boy, they then killed the boy. For the four following days they fed off Parker’s body and blood before they were eventually rescued. Now looking at this from a utilitarian point of view killing Parker was the perfect choice, he was an orphan, therefore, he had no family and a few friends to go to, he was also very sick and was going to die either way from drinking sea water. On the other had the other men had wives, children and other relatives that would have been saddened by their death. The choices they made did indeed maximize their happiness. Another good example of utilitarian thinking is in the scenario that one terrorist suspect who may know where a bomb is hidden would have to be tortured in order to

Question 1: Williams thinks that the doctrine of negative responsibility, which follows from the principle of utility, undermines personal integrity. Do you agree that being held responsible for the consequences of not acting, of failing to prevent something, will (always or sometimes) erode the idea of personal integrity? Is there any way to be a utilitarian and still respect the integrity of individuals?

The first example he uses is about a man named George who is looking for a job. The find one but it is not a job that he prefers. He knows that someone will have to do the job regardless of weather he take the offer or not. He would like to turn the job down because he doesn’t like the idea of it. His wife also encourages him to not take the job because it can be a dangerous job. If he was to follow his utilitarianism way he would have to accept the job because he would not want someone to get the job that was not qualified the way he is. If someone else got it that was not as qualified he would be doing more harm.

The case by Williams in “A critique of Utilitarianism,” is as followed. Jim is in a small South American town where he finds a band of armed men holding twenty indians hostaged. Pedro, the man in charge, explains that because of recent protest the

The two problems with utilitarianism, one of which questions whether pleasure is the only important moral value, and the other that questions whether it can function as the authority in moral judgments. I believe utilitarianism does not accurately describe how we always make moral decisions; it is difficult to see how many people might be affected by a given course of action; it is equally difficult to know how to assign importance to the various good or bad consequences that come about as moral decision-making is the one area we cannot account for with a

In Jon Stuarts Mills “Utilitarianism” a theory is put forward. It states that morality can be traced back to a single principle. This theory defines a just action as one that promotes happiness and an unjust action as one that produces the opposite of happiness. Happiness being “the absence of pain”.

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

John Stuart Mills believed in Utilitarianism which was a form of normative ethical theories. Utilitarianism is based on the greatest happiness principle in that it rates actions good or bad based on the greatest good or happiness caused as the consequence of said action. “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (John Stuart Mill.)

In “Persons, character and morality”, Williams used “one thought too many” argument to show his disagreement on utilitarianism. In this paper, I will argue that the “one thought too many” is not a fair or strong criticism to utilitarianism. It will first discuss what “one thought too many” criticism is. Then I will point out the vulnerable points of this criticism to show that it is not a strong statement against utilitarianism. First one is the confusion over what is needed to be justified to take the action of saving the wife, and the second is some specific scenarios that Williams’ argument failed to address.

Its general outline is the moral rightness of an action is determined by outcomes. For example, a student was struggling to help an old lady who has fallen on ground while other people do not even care about it and a student had to leave in a hurry. However, he helped her and a lady offered cordial thanks. As the example is illustrated, the act is good if its consequences are good, but if its consequences are bad then the act is wrong. Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) emphasizes that consequentialists determine what is right by weighing the ratio of good to bad that an action will produce. According to consequentialists, the decision of the Dean of Harvard Business School is simply explained as the result of decision which rejected all applicants who attempted to access the information derive a conclusion which Dean Clark observed their belief, principles and it shows making own decisions is always with responsibility for actions. In addition, utilitarianism will be applied on this case because this theory is in contrast with egoism which can be defined by Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) as egoism contends that an act is morally right if and only if it best promotes an agent’s long term interest.’. It means self-interesting is most important key point whether going into action or not. However, Utilitarianism is focused on more about ‘achieving the

In this essay, I will talk about the theory of classical utilitarianism. My objection will be about how classical utilitarianism ignores justice and moral rights, and I will argue how this can undermine the theory. I will then discuss how this theory cannot be saved from this objection.

Utilitarianism is not one of the most popular philosophy 's to be studied and analyzed by most thinkers. Therefore, many people wondered why Williams ever decided to critique this topic and how he even discovered that this was the idea he wanted to analyze. There are multiple reasons on why Williams decided to evaluate the outcomes of actions and consequences leading to the greatest happiness. First off Williams was aware that it was not a topic that was known by many other people. He knew it would be a thought-provoking subject to study and believed he could get some recognition from others if he would express his opinion on it. Williams wanted his opinion on the matter known to the public because he wanted others to understand more on the topic in general and get people thinking. He believed that many philosophers had the wrong idea on what Utilitarianism was about and he wanted to entice these thinkers to contemplate the true