A Critique of Utilitarianism
Bernard Williams' "Critique of Utilitarianism" focuses on addressing a major philosophical problem posed by utilitarianism. According to utilitarian theory actions can only be carried out if they produce the greatest amount of happiness. An example illustrating this theory is about Jim who faces the dilemma of choosing between either killing one Indian in order to spare the lives of the other Indians, or refusing to kill thereby allowing Pedro the soldier to kill all the Indians. If Jim was to apply the utilitarian theory, he would be led to believe that his killing of one Indian would be the solution leading towards the greatest amount of happiness for all involved. The problem Williams has with utilitarianism is that it severely discounts one crucial element in its quest towards deriving solutions to real world dilemmas. That element is the state of a person's private morals; the effects of these morals u
The argument Williams makes in defense of his conclusion can be seen by the way he uses the example of Jim. It would ignore the fact that Pedro is another actor in this situation with his own private morals. To claim that the blame for the twenty Indians' deaths lay strictly with Jim's refusal would be to diminish Pedro's role in the tragedy. Downplaying or disregarding these morals would ultimately lead to an attack upon our very own integrity. Thus instead of thinking about the effects of Jim's morals on Pedro, it would be more prudent to think about the effects of Pedro's morals on Jim's decision. For those times where people have ample opportunity to decide, moral considerations should play a major part in their decision. pon a person can be seen through their emotional and psychological impact upon him/her. He argues that a significant moral distinction exists between an action directly carried out by Jim and an action carried out by Pedro because of Jim's refusal. Instead of simply discounting one's moral concerns when comparing different utilities or just adding them in, a person should clearly come to terms with why he holds certain morals, how they affect his psychological and emotional well-being, and whether they should factor significantly into his decisions. Utilitarianism views these effects to be irrational, which means they are not worthy enough to be considered in utilitarian calculations. Williams thus concludes that decisions must be made after a deep understanding of a person's deeply held projects, reactions, and impulses that are shaped by his/her morals. Its problem is that it does not see that people are essentially moral actors who exercise a great amount of agency while making decisions. Also not all decisions are made under severe time constraints. My objection was that usually a person would not have time to think deeply about his/her morals when faced with quickly deciding upon the best outcome.
Common topics in this essay:
Pedro Jim's,
According Williams,
Indians Jim,
Critique Utilitarianism,
morals instead,
williams utilitarianism,
utilitarian theory,
his/her morals,
amount happiness,
emotional psychological,
killing indian,
jim's refusal,
private morals,
|
Acceptance Essays
