Essay on Bernard Williams and Utilitarianism

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

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

Utilitarianism is a practical doctrine that is widely accepted in modern society’s economics, politic, and ethics. Utilitarian is driven by the pursuit of happiness. For a utilitarian, everything that will be helpful in the pursuit is considered good. In utilitarianism, an action is good or evil based on its consequences on the happiness of an individual and the happiness of the community. Similar to other doctrine, utilitarianism is not without a flaw. Bernard Williams, in his paper Utilitarianism and Integrity, voices his primary concern in regard to utilitarianism by providing two concrete examples to demonstrate how utilitarianism is only concerned about the consequences of the action and not about the means used to get there. Williams argues that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge the integrity of a person because the ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to produce the greatest happiness overall.

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?

Utilitarianism as an ethical theory is seen as 'an act that is morally correct if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people affected by the act'. (Crane, Matten, Chapt. 3). It is a principle that concentrates on the outcome of an act and compares the good outcome with the bad outcome and supports the outcome that brings the greatest amount of good for all stakeholders involved.

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.

Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. It is the authors opinion that these claims are factually incorrect and this essay shall attempt to prove this through analysis of common arguments against AU, and modifying AU to allow for justice to be more readily accounted for.

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

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

Critics of utilitarianism argue that consequences have a place, and must be considered, but other moral principles, the relevant virtues, human rights, and what our choices and judgments say about us, must be thought about. Consequences matter, but they are not all that matter. Morality is about more than the mere consequences of our

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”.

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.)

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