s is addressed by Williams himself in the same article which
describes the Jim and the Indians dilemma. Williams notes that it is impossible to know if
killing one Indian is absolutely the right decision because, using the utilitarian theory, one
does not consider special circumstances. Williams argues that doing something that brings
the most overall happiness is not always the "right" thing to do. One example of such a
situation in which using utilitarian theory seems to result in a wrong decision could be the
organ donor case. Most would agree that harvesting one innocent and healthy man for his
organs in order to save ten lives is wrong. Yet according to utilitarian theory, the
innocent man's rights deserve no consideration. The number of lives saved is the main
determinant in making the "right" decision, which would be to harvest the organs. There
could be similar "special considerations" in Jim's situation. Perhaps the guilt that Jim feels
for being directly responsible for the death of one Indian would be far worse than the guilt
he would feel if he did not kill anyone, even though all of the Indians would die.
However, when using utilitarian theory there is no question which option is the best, and
Jim is allowed little consideration about the major decision. Williams does not indicate
which decision he feels Jim should make. In fact, it seems as though Williams could say
that option one is the best decision, as long as all circumstances are taken into account.
Williams believes that overall happiness cannot be the sole determinant of what is virtuous.
A second downfall to Jim's using utilitarian theory to choose option one is
discussed in "Utilitarianism and the Virtues", by Philippa Foot. Foot has a different
approach to discounting utilitarian theory. She notes that the main problem with
utilitarianism is that it ...