A Critique of Utilitarianism
Bernard Williams
Two Examples (see 613):
George and the CBW lab
• 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
Jim and the Indians
• Is a botanist
• Stumbles upon a massexecution in progress
• Is offered the “visitor’s
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?