Transcript Introduction to Ethics Lecture 13 Bernard Williams

Introduction to Ethics
Lecture 13
Bernard Williams
By David Kelsey
Williams
•
•
•
•
Bernard Williams (1929-2003) was a British philosopher.
Taught at Cal Berkeley
Was a great admirer of Mill, but not himself a Utilitarian.
Like Mill he wanted to apply his philosophical views to form public policy.
Applying our moral theories:
Moral Dilemmas
•
So far we have looked at a few Ethical Theories, including both Utilitarianism and
Deontology.
–
–
•
Moral dilemmas:
–
–
•
Ethical theories give general answers to the question ‘What ought I do?”
But sometimes more specific answers to this question are interesting.
are specific cases in which it is hard to tell what one ought to do.
We can use our intuitions to moral dilemmas to find out which of our ethical theories we think correct.
The Williams Dilemma: In this class we will look at a specific moral dilemma.
–
–
It is presented by the British recently deceased Philosopher, Bernard Williams.
Deontology vs. Utilitarianism?
George the Chemist
•
George the Chemist:
–
“George, who has taken his Ph.D in chemistry, finds it extremely difficult to get a job.
He is not very robust in health, which cuts down the number of jobs he might be able to
do satisfactorily. His wife has to go out to work to keep them, which itself causes a
great deal of strain, since they have small children and there are severe problems
about looking after them. The results of all this, especially on the children, are
damaging. An older chemist, who knows about this situation, says that he can get
George a decently paid job in a certain laboratory, which pursues research into
chemical and biological warfare. George says that he cannot accept this, since he is
opposed to chemical and biological warfare. The older man replies that he is not too
keen on it himself, come to that, but after all George’s refusal is not going to make the
job or the laboratory go away; what is more, he happens to know that if George refuses
the job, it will certainly go to a contemporary of George’s who is not inhibited by any
such scruples and is likely if appointed to push along the research with greater zeal
than George would. Indeed, it is not merely concern for George and his family, but (to
speak frankly and in confidence) some alarm abut this other man’s excess of zeal,
which had le the older man to offer to use his influence to get George the
job…George’s wife, to whom he is deeply attached, has views…from which it follows
that at least there is nothing particularly wrong with research into CBW. What should
he do?” (From the first page of Williams’ Utilitarianism and Integrity)
George’s options
•
George gets to choose between these actions:
–
–
•
Their consequences:
–
–
•
A. working to make chemical weapons.
B. Being unemployed.
A. George makes small amounts of chemical weapons.
B. Someone else who doesn’t see anything wrong with making chemical weapons
makes large amounts.
What should George do? What would you do?
Some things to notice
•
George is in a tough position.
–
•
Changing the case to make things easier doesn’t help
–
•
That’s why it is a moral dilemma.
That’s just changing the topic.
Changing the case to make things harder is ok.
–
–
…because we’re interested in the hard cases.
The hard cases are where ethical theories help us out.
Jim and Pedro
•
Jim and Pedro:
–
“Jim finds himself in the central square of a small South American town. Tied up
against the wall are a row of twenty Indians, most terrified, a few defiant, in front of
them several armed men in uniform. A heavy man in a sweat-stained khaki shirt turns
out to be the captain in charge and, after a good deal of questioning of Jim which
establishes that he got there by accident while on a botanical expedition, explains that
the Indians are a random group of the inhabitants who, after recent acts of protest
against the government, are just about to be killed to remind other possible protestors
of the advantages of not protesting. However, since Jim is an honoured visitor from
another land, the captain is happy to offer him a guest’s privilege of killing one of the
Indians himself. If Jim accepts, then as a special mark of the occasion, the other
Indians will be let off. Of course, if Jim refuses, then there is no special occasion, and
Pedro here will do what he was about to do when Jim arrived, and kill them all. Jim,
with some desperate recollection of schoolboy fiction, wonders whether if he got hold
of a gun, he could hold the captain, Pedro and the rest of the soldiers to threat, but it is
quite clear from the set-up that nothing of that kind is going to work: any attempt at that
sort of thing will mean that all the Indians will be killed, and himself. The men against
the wall, and the other villagers, understand the situation, and are obviously begging
him to accept. What should he do?” (From the first page of Williams’ Utilitarianism and
Integrity)
Jim’s options
•
Jim gets to choose between these actions:
–
–
•
Their consequences:
–
–
•
A. Killing one of the villagers himself.
B. Not killing anyone.
A. One villager gets killed (by Jim) and the rest of the villagers go free.
B. Twenty villagers get killed (by Pedro).
What should Jim do? What would you do?
Utilitarianism
and the dilemmas
•
In both of our dilemmas:
– Option (a) (making weapons/killing the villager):
• leads to the best consequences available, but involves doing something morally
repugnant.
– Option (b):
• leads to less good consequences, but you get to have a clean conscience.
•
Utilitarians seem to have to choose (a).
•
Deontologists would choose (b).
Utilitarianism and
Negative Responsibility
•
Utilitarianism and Negative responsibility:
– According to Williams, Utilitarianism entails the notion of negative
responsibility:
• 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…bring about.
– Thus, for a Utilitarian, should Jim refrain from killing the 1 Indian, he is
morally responsible and so blameworthy for the deaths of the Indians Pedro
kills.
– And should George not take the job, he is responsible for the increased
weapons production of the new hire.
Williams on Moral Responsibility
•
Williams on Moral Responsibility:
–
–
•
For Williams, Jim is only morally responsible for his own actions, not for Pedro’s. So
Jim can’t be blamed for what Pedro does.
And George is only morally responsible for his actions, not for those of whoever will
take the chemical weapons job if he doesn’t take it.
Williams supports for this view:
–
“While the deaths, and the killing, may be the outcome of Jim’s refusal, it is misleading
to think, in such a case, of Jim having an effect on the world through the medium (as it
happens) of Pedro’s acts; for this is to leave Pedro out of the picture in his essential
role of one who has intentions and projects, projects for realizing which Jim’s refusal
would leave an opportunity. Instead of thinking in terms of supposed effects of Jim’s
projects on Pedro, it is more revealing to think of the effects of Pedro’s projects on
Jim’s decision…”
The dilemmas are Counterexamples
to Utilitarianism
•
So Williams thinks the dilemma’s are counterexamples to Utilitarianism:
–
The dilemma’s show that sometimes the right thing to do isn’t to bring about the best
consequences. Sometimes it is more important to stick by what we believe.
–
•
The Utilitarian reply: It’s selfish!
– Isn’t it really just selfish to try to keep your own conscience clean by
allowing someone else to do something wrong?
– Wouldn’t the villagers rather that Jim kill one of them than allow Pedro to kill
twenty?
Williams reply: a loss of personal integrity
•
Williams response: A loss of personal Integrity!
–
Utilitarianism entails that the projects and commitments with which a person is most
deeply identified, those which make up who a person is, can be swept aside for the
sake of the greater good.
•
–
“The decision so determined is, for utilitarianism, the right decision. But what if it conflicts with
some project of mine? This, the utilitarian will say, has already been dealt with: the satisfaction
to you of fulfilling your project, and any satisfaction to others of your so doing, have already
been through the calculating device and have been found inadequate. Now in the case of many
sorts of projects, that is a perfectly reasonable sort of answer. But in the case of projects of the
sort I have called ‘commitments,’ those with which one is more deeply and extensively involved
and identified, this cannot just by itself be an adequate answer, and there may be no adequate
answer at all. For, to take the extreme sort of case, how can a man, as a utilitarian agent, come
to regard as one satisfaction among others, and a dispensable one, a project or attitude round
which he has built his life, just because someone else’s projects have so structured the causal
scene that that is how the utilitarian sum comes out?” (494, I.e. the final page of the Williams
article)
Note that Williams is most worried about Utilitarianism’s attack on what he calls
‘commitments’
•
Examples of commitments…
Personal Integrity
•
A loss of personal integrity again:
– It is the Utilitarians commitment to the sacrifice of one’s own projects, commitments,
goals and principles for the sake of the greater good, which lies at the heart of it’s
attack on one’s own personal integrity:
•
•
“It is absurd to demand of such a man…that he should just step aside from his own project and
decision and acknowledge the decision which the utilitarian calculation requires. It is to alienate
him in a real sense from his actions and the source of his action in his own convictions. It is to
make him into a channel between the input of everyone’s projects, including his own, and an
output of optimific decision; but this is to neglect the extent to which his actions and his
decisions have to be seen as the actions and decisions which flow from the projects and
attitudes with which he is most closely identified. It is thus, in the most literal sense, an attack
on his integrity.” (Williams, pg 494, I.e. the final page of the article)
The Utilitarian response:
– why can’t your integrity be built upon the Utilitarian principle?