A Defense of
Utilitarianism
Kai Nielsen
What is Nielsen arguing?



Nielsen’s argument is against the idea that
there is a privileged set of moral principles
that can never be violated through our
choices of actions.
He believes that we are responsible not only for
the consequences of our actions, but also for
the consequences of our nonactions.
He believes that hard decisions are made by
people in extreme situations, not by people with
‘corrupt minds’. He argues that there may be
situations when violence against innocents is
justified.
The Magistrate and the Threatening
Mob
In this case the judge would be preventing carnage
by framing an innocent person.
Nielsen argues that you can give a
‘consequentialist’ argument either way here, so
utilitarianism doesn’t REQUIRE the killing of an
innocent person in such a situation.
 However, in the long run more damage could be
caused by questions regarding the
corruption/reliability of the justice system.
 He claims the argument isn’t about moral
principles, but about empirical facts. To judge the
judge morally wrong doesn’t require an absolutist
moral principle.
The role of “common sense morality”
This is his argument against “a privileged set of
moral principles” He is referring to those moral
principles that tell us that something is just
WRONG. [such as killing an innocent person.]
The question is: What does “universalizing” a
moral judgment mean? How far do we need
to go in testing them in alternate worlds”?
However he argues that how we understand
human nature and motivation cannot but affect
our structuring of the moral case.
 And we can give utilitarian weight to our moral
common sense.
The Case of the Innocent Fat Man
Nielsen believes that in this case we should
blow the ‘fat man’ our of the cave opening
to save everyone else.
 The ‘moral conservative’ would say that it
is always wrong to kill the innocent.
He asks whether common sense moral
convictions always function as ‘moral
facts’?
 i.e, to be given the same weight as facts.
The Case of the Innocent Fat Man
He argues that the desperate situation does
NOT mean that people are callous
towards human life.
The fat person’s interests are not ignored.
And it isn’t “unjust” Why not?
 What basic principle does justice use?
[fairness]
Negative Responsibility
He contrasts inhumanity [killing innocent] to
inhumanity plus evasiveness [not willing to
choose]
He argues that we are responsible when we OMIT
an action too.
 What do you think?
 Are we responsible when we don’t act ?
He asks: Can we ever say that something
just IS right? What could that mean?