Why Bernard Williams Argues That Utilitarianism Is Wrong - Coursework Example

Utilitarianism Utilitarianism as put forth by former philosophers tends to focus on justifying the means through the outcomes. Jeremy Bentham and Stuart Mill’s concept of utilitarianism brings out the essence of happiness or pain, as a measure of what was right or wrong. They contributed highly to the past social reforms in the societies during the 18th and 19th century. The basic idea of utilitarianism encompasses two factors, namely happiness and consequences. Happiness is given the intrinsic value in any course of actions; Mill states that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (“Utilitarianism,” csus.edu). Utilitarianism hence entails consequentialism, which lays emphasis on the outcome of the available choices; as a result, an action is right if it delivers the best result of all given alternatives. In the end, the good (gauging using pleasure or happiness) could have been maximized, but the actions that took place in the process of delivering the outcome are given less weight. The doctrine in general urges the society to practice that which brings the most benefit to the world, and places demand on the moral position of individuals. Argument based on moral conviction The world is composed of different people with different values in life. One would delight in evil as a way for delivering justice, while the other would completely refrain from it. This is because their moral conviction driven by their values could differ. Sometimes people are placed in a situation where their actions would directly or indirectly affect those of others, least to mention them. As such, their choices are crucial because the other party’s expectation factors in to dictate the ending. Utilitarianism demands that an individual put aside their self-interest for the sake of others involved or to maximize the good. Often, the personal interests are tied to the values and moral aspect of the person, and would hence mean deviating from one’ moral principles to please others. Nature, religion, cultures and law shape the moral aspect of human beings and with time, construct deeply held virtues that guide them to what they can or not do. For example, poverty has led people to practice certain disrespectful and unhealthy acts to gain wealth, or be able to give their families a comfortable life. However, there is a good number outside there who are not willing to compromise their morals for money or to liberate their loved ones. Many girls though have engaged in sexual activities and drug trafficking, to afford a meal or comfortable shelters for their families. Majority of those who engage in these activities have to part away with their personal integrity for the sake of the dependent families. It takes an effort to be a person of and act with integrity. Utilitarianism principle causes people to compromise their moral integrity when they are pushed to engage in horrendous acts, which are justified to be moral by the maximization of good or happiness in the end. For a girl who chooses to refrain from prostitution and secure herself for official marriage, being forced to engage in sex work for her family means that her interests are disregarded for family gains. Whatever an individual holds dear, he strives in his life to live with the principles. The strong defense of actions using moral convictions creates settings that help people know whether their inner person is at peace, especially knowing they have followed their best moral conviction. People tend to feel disappointed with themselves when they fail to uphold their values, and instead live to fulfill those of others. In other words, their feelings cannot be separated from the personal interest and moral convictions, which all contribute to their characters. What a person feels is due to the inner moral conviction, which Utilitarianism tends to ignore. According to Hinman, “integrity  may  involve  certain  identity-­‐conferring commitments,  such  that  the  violation  of  those  commitments  entails  a  violation  of  who  we  are  at  our  core” (28). An act is not necessarily right because of the happy ending, while the mode of delivering it required compromising with moral convictions and values of others. The ‘means’ matters just as the end does. Argument based on consequences and numerical superiority Putting together the agent’s feelings and those of other people involved in the course of action, Utilitarianism demands that the action that would lead to the greater collective gain be taken. Therefore, an individual’s feelings in a scenario are the minority that when considered, could lead to relatively no good for the collective society. Instead, the person’s choice and feelings would act in opposition to the general people’s expectations to please only himself rather than the other majority group. Williams used a scenario of an agent (Jim) whom according to the Utilitarian approach, is expected to murder one of the apprehended Indians in a foreign land in order save the rest. The safety and the happiness of the rest of the Indians are placed in his power and he needed to make a drastic decision to secure their lives. In any case, if he refused, all Indians would have to be killed in the scenario, but Jim would have acted based on his moral convictions though saved none. Again the Utilitarian approach forces Jim to distance himself from his moral principles, perform the killing of one and liberate the others, which is the greater majority’s expectation. Consider the actions of President Truman in ending the war. Utilitarianism justifies the action for it enabled world peace in the end, stopping the war and saving millions of lives. The consequences were good, but the means involved other violations of human rights, especially those of the minority. Truman faced with the war challenge and numerous attacks on the United States by the Japanese needed to make a decision. One, he had the option of staying clean and refraining from war based on his feelings and moral conviction towards the action. This could imply that Japans could continue to destroy the United States, only for the president to save himself from guilt. Second, he had the choice to abandon his moral principles for the benefit of the greater society to achieve peace. This situation is not new, but a political dilemma that governments and leaders face from time to time. They are forced to consider the collective goals of the majority and give them preference over own interests. Not because their convictions do not tell them what is right or wrong, but because the numerical superiority of the others and their interests or goals outnumber the individual ones. Utilitarianism disregards these convictions for the sake of the numerical superiority, letting go the character and integrity of the individual, and allowing the state of the world to determine the moral status of actions (Raby 10). Presidents and leaders have moral convictions and feelings towards an act they are about to take, which should be central to guiding their decisions. It would be wise to also question what a leader or president or agent in a situation would prefer, before executing the decision that serves for the purpose of the majority. Neglect of the self-moral concept to execute the wishes of others would be losing oneself or detaching from the realities of life. Consequentialism and negative responsibility Utilitarianism supports the existence of negative responsibility in the course of bringing out the best consequences. Negative responsibility holds “that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent, as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about” (Harris 265). The will of the individual to refrain from the action that gives the best consequences is not granted the moral status and respect it deserves because of the state of affairs of the world. The person is forced into actions to prevent further worse consequences, or because of the actions of others. William argues that each person is responsible for his or her actions, and not what other people make them do. Utilitarianism fails to consider personal integrity by holding an individual responsible for what they fail to prevent, as they uphold their moral principles. It ignores the causal linkage, but emphasize on the agents responsibility for both his actions and inactions. It is rather very common in politics to experience cases of hostages and terrorist attacks. Government reacts to these situations and most often ends up violent with numerous death incidences to secure lives. However, failing to meet the demands of the terrorists or approving to required actions that are not in line with the commander’s moral doctrine brings the causal linkage of the commander’s inaction to the death of the held hostages, or terrorists worst consequences. It is evident that Utilitarianism would approve to meeting the demands or implementing actions such as attacks that would risk the hostages’ lives in the process, because of the strong attached negative responsibility of the commander. It would imply giving in to the terrorist actions, admitting to loss of lives of some of the civilians in the process of attacks, but most important to taking responsibility of the consequences in situations where their actions are forced by those of others. If the commander refrains from attacks, objects the demands and terrorists assassinate the hostages, it would be wrong to hold the commander responsible of the civilian’s deaths. The inaction of the commander is as a result of not losing himself and his integrity based on his own moral convictions. People have deep commitments in their lives that they would choose to retain given all possible alternative actions. These commitments are not determined by the measure of the consequences to evaluate their moral value. People will implement them regardless of the outcomes, whether good or bad because it is what they believe in. More so, they have a right to exercise their choices, and free from being alienated from their real sense under unusual circumstances by the actions of others. These commitments (projects and values) stand all through, which is contrary to Utilitarianism that requires “we stand back from our projects and value them only if they promote the general utility” (Hauptli, fiu.edu). Even in times of distress and threats, people can choose to preserve their integrity, which does not make them wrong. Reasons why it is not sufficient to reject Utilitarianism Valuable principle of considering others interests: Faced by a situation that requires consideration of the parties involved, it is far more important to consider other people or partners’, and how one’s decision would affect them in general. For example, in William’s case study on Jim’s scenario, suppose you were one of the Indians, it is no doubt you would desire to be saved. That does not necessarily make the decision of killing right, but since the action would provide the best outcome where possible, rather than have all killed, one is forced to perceive others distress and behave justly to rescue the majority. In such situations, the individual acting would definitely not be satisfied as he implements the choice that promotes the greatest utility. It is rather unfortunate that the actors would not always benefit from the course of action that promotes the interest of many, but even so, his moral convictions should not always be a restriction for doing what is right for the common good. Utilitarianism and democracy: Utilitarianism weighs up the possible alternatives for consequences to decide on the best action to take. If moral convictions and feelings are given the higher precedence, then it would be a selfish act of oneself to preserve their integrity at the expense of others. Today, experienced democracy is well connected to the morality of Utilitarianism. The will of the majority people surpasses that of the minority and this has been used in public policies to deliver services to the general society. For example, it is of integrity to sacrifice personal spending on pleasures, for the sake of those suffering say from hunger or treatable diseases. Heath care can be provided for the wellbeing of the majority and security can be maintained for everyone’s sake, when people distance themselves from their inner interests to limit their spending and reveal criminal organizations respectively. Their values and projects are important, but would be fair and of moral integrity to consider the rest involved. Utilitarianism has its strong reasons and benefits for the common good, but fails to give close attention to the personal integrity. Works Cited Harris, J. “William on Negative Responsibility and Integrity.” The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 96, Jul., 1974. Haupli, B.W. “Lecture Supplement on Bernard Williams “Against Utilitarianism” [1973].” fiu.edu. 28 September 2013. Web. 7 March 2014. Hinman, L.M. “Utilitarianism: An Introduction.” sandiego.edu . 2 February 2014. Web. 7 March 2014. Raby, Alexander. “Williams’ Integrity: Is the Utilitarian’s Calculus Too Inhuman for Morality?” web.nmsu.edu. n.d. Web. 7 March 2014. “Utilitarianism.” csus.edu. n.d. Web. 7 March 2014. Read More