Exam 23: Bernard Williams

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -Williams claims that utilitarians reject the category of the unthinkable.

Free

(True/False)

4.7/5

(77)

Question 1

Correct Answer:

Verified

True

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -Williams claims that it is too broad to say that according to consequentialism, the only kind of thing that has intrinsic value is states of affairs, but too narrow to say that the value of actions is always consequential. Explain his argument for each of these claims. What characterization of consequentialism does he finally settle on?

Free

(Essay)

4.9/5

(90)

Question 2

Correct Answer:

Answered by Examlex AI Copilot

Bernard Williams critiques utilitarianism and consequentialism by arguing that these ethical theories prioritize maximizing intrinsic value without considering the agent's personal commitments and attitudes. He characterizes consequentialism as the belief that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value, with utilitarianism specifically focusing on happiness as the only intrinsic value. Williams objects to this view because it implies that agents are equally responsible for allowing negative consequences to occur as they are for directly causing them.

Williams presents two famous examples to illustrate his objection. In the first case, a chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons, which goes against his personal beliefs, or allow a zealous proponent of chemical weapons to take the job. In the second case, a traveler must choose whether to execute an innocent person or allow 20 innocent people to be executed. In both cases, Williams argues that utilitarianism requires the agent to act against their deeply held commitments, which neglects the personal projects and attitudes that shape an agent's decisions.

Williams claims that consequentialism is too broad in its focus on states of affairs as the only intrinsic value, but also too narrow in its consideration of the value of actions. He ultimately settles on the characterization of consequentialism as a theory that neglects the personal commitments and attitudes that influence an agent's decisions. This critique highlights the limitations of consequentialism and the importance of considering the individual agent's perspective in ethical decision-making.

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -What does Williams mean by integrity, and how does he argue for his claim that utilitarianism constitutes an attack on one's integrity? Do you find his argument convincing? Why or why not?

Free

(Essay)

4.8/5

(80)

Question 3

Correct Answer:

Answered by Examlex AI Copilot

Williams defines integrity as the coherence and consistency of a person's actions with their deeply held commitments, values, and beliefs. He argues that utilitarianism constitutes an attack on one's integrity because it requires individuals to act against their deeply held commitments and values whenever the utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. In other words, utilitarianism demands that individuals prioritize the maximization of happiness over their own personal values and commitments, even if it means acting in ways that go against their own moral principles.

Williams' argument is convincing because it highlights the importance of personal values and commitments in guiding one's actions. He emphasizes that individuals' decisions are often deeply intertwined with their own projects and attitudes, and that utilitarianism's demand for maximizing happiness neglects the significance of these personal factors. By requiring individuals to act against their own deeply held commitments, utilitarianism undermines the coherence and consistency of their actions, thus attacking their integrity.

Furthermore, Williams' examples of the poor chemist and the traveler illustrate the conflict between utilitarianism and personal integrity. In both cases, individuals are forced to choose between acting in accordance with their own moral principles or maximizing overall happiness, thus highlighting the tension between utilitarianism and personal integrity.

Overall, Williams' argument effectively demonstrates how utilitarianism can undermine one's integrity by disregarding the importance of personal values and commitments in guiding ethical decision-making. His critique raises important questions about the relationship between moral theories and personal integrity, and highlights the limitations of utilitarianism in accounting for the complexity of human decision-making.

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -Williams argues that under the right conditions, by the utilitarian's lights, it would be permissible to remove a racial minority from society.

(True/False)

4.8/5

(74)

Question 4

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -What does happiness involve, according to Williams? How does Williams's view of happiness differ from that assumed by simple versions of utilitarianism. What role does his notion of happiness play in his argument?

(Essay)

4.7/5

(85)

Question 5

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -Williams argues that consequentialism is indifferent to whether a state of affairs is produced by what I do or consists in what I do.

(True/False)

4.9/5

(75)

Question 6

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -Williams claims that the demands of utilitarianism constitute an attack on the agent's:

(Multiple Choice)

4.8/5

(98)

Question 7

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -Williams claims that it would clearly be wrong for Jim to do what Pedro asks of him.

(True/False)

4.9/5

(66)

Question 8

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -According to Williams, the utilitarian must regard Jim's feelings of moral uncertainty as:

(Multiple Choice)

4.8/5

(71)

Question 9

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -According to Williams, utilitarianism's strong doctrine of negative responsibility follows from:

(Multiple Choice)

4.9/5

(78)

Question 10

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -Write an essay critically examining one of the two cases Williams presents (George the Chemist or Jim and the Indians). Explain the case, and explain why Williams thinks utilitarianism fails to provide a compelling account of how each agent ought to decide what to do. Do you find Williams's argument convincing? Defend your answer.

(Essay)

4.8/5

(78)

Question 11

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -Williams argues that according to consequentialism, it makes no moral difference whether I do something or merely allow the same thing to happen.

(True/False)

4.9/5

(67)

Question 12

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -Williams distinguishes two kinds of remote effect relevant to utilitarianism:

(Multiple Choice)

4.7/5

(78)

Question 13

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -In Williams's case of George the chemist, George is torn between:

(Multiple Choice)

4.9/5

(76)

Question 14

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -Williams claims that utilitarians should not take account of feelings that are irrational from the utilitarian point of view. How does he argue for this view? Do you think his argument is a good one? Why or why not?

(Essay)

4.9/5

(89)

Question 15

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -In the two cases he discusses, Williams claims that utilitarianism:

(Multiple Choice)

4.8/5

(70)

Question 16

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -Williams claims that to say that certain activities make a man happy is to say:

(Multiple Choice)

4.8/5

(89)

Question 17

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -What is the thesis of negative responsibility? Does Williams regard it as an advantage or a disadvantage of consequentialism? Do you agree with him? Defend your answer.

(Essay)

4.9/5

(73)

Question 18

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -According to Williams, to claim that the only states of affairs have intrinsic value is:

(Multiple Choice)

5.0/5

(76)

Question 19

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "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." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples. In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes. -According to Williams, consequentialists are committed to a strong doctrine of negative responsibility.

(True/False)

4.9/5

(74)

Question 20

Showing 1 - 20 of 32

Exam 23: Bernard Williams

Plato

Aristotle

Epicurus

Cicero

Epictetus

Augustine

Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Hobbes

Joseph Butler

David Hume

Immanuel Kant

Jeremy Bentham

John Stuart Mill

Henry Sidgwick

Friedrich Nietzsche

G.E.Moore

H.A.Prichard

A.J.Ayer

C.L.Stevenson

John Dewey

R.M.Hare

J.J.C.Smart

W.D.Ross

John Rawls

David Gauthier

T.M.Scanlon

Barbara Herman

Philippa Foot

Christine Korsgaard

Thomas Nagel

Susan Wolf

Jean-Paul Sartre

G.E.M.Anscombe

Julia Annas

Nomy Arpaly

Virginia Held

Gilbert Harman

J.L.Mackie

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

Mary Midgley

James Rachels

Judith Jarvis Thomson

Don Marquis

James Rachels

Philippa Foot

Peter Singer

Travis Timmerman

Tom Regan

Henry Shue

Karen Hanson

Laurence Thomas

Celia Wolf-Devine

N.Ann Davis

Margaret Crouch

Judith Jarvis Thomson

Judith Jarvis Thomson

Thomas Nagel

Richard Taylor

Filters