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. -According to Williams, utilitarians should regard the precedent effect of one's action as morally irrelevant.

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, it is unreasonable to extend the notion of the unavailability of actions to:

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. -How does Williams characterize the difference between consequentialist and nonconsequentialist approaches to ethics? Which approach do you find more plausible and why?

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 if utilitarianism is true, our actions should be determined by the undesirable projects of other people as much as by desirable ones.

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 consequentialism, the right action is the one that:

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. -Some feelings are irrational from the utilitarian point of view. Williams claims that in deciding what to do, utilitarians should give such feelings:

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, direct consequentialism holds that "right action" is:

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's me" can:

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 claim that everything that has value has it by virtue of its consequences.

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. -The doctrine of negative responsibility is the idea that:

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 nonconsequentialists are committed to the claim that:

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 utilitarianism cannot coherently describe the relations between a man's projects and his actions.