Transcript Document
Review: How Nielsen argues his CASES 1. In the “Magistrate & Mob” scapegoat case a Utilitarian could argue that Utilitarianism doesn’t require the death of an innocent person. According to Nielsen why? Utilitarians can differ on the consequences [facts] that must be considered. 2. In the “Cave” case he argues that the death of an innocent person is neither the result of corrupt moral natures nor decided without taking into account the “fat man’s” interests. Bernard William’s Critique of Utilitarianism Williams argues that: Utilitarianism violates moral integrity because it requires us to reject conscience and our personal ideals for the lesser of two evils. Williams is asking what the role of our conscience and/or feelings in moral decision making - our moral commitments. The Utilitarian concept of “negative responsibility” Williams believes that the Utilitarian concept of “negative responsibility” is the source of the violation of personal integrity. Definition of NEGATIVE RESPONSIBILITY: We are responsible not only for the consequences of our actions, but also for the consequences of our non-actions. A Utilitarian [such as Nielsen] believes that to NOT choose is to be evasive. Why does William focus on “negative responsibility”? It is because Utilitarianism focuses on situations. [called “states of affairs”] States of affairs = situations in the world that are factual. The focus on situations produces the idea of “negative responsibility” – our responsibility for both what we do and don’t do or prevent. Williams thinks we should focus on something other than “states of affairs” , for him that would be “moral integrity Impartiality & Negative Reponsibility According to a Utilitarian, “Negative Responsibility” ensures “impartiality” “it’s me” is never a morally comprehensible reason for a Utilitarian Williams argues that other nonconsequentialist moral theories have value of IMPARTIALITY [how achieve?] Williams: If, as Utilitarians argue, the identity of agent is not important – all that is left is “causal intervention” According to Utilitarianism If, as Utilitarians argue, the identity of agent is not important– all that is left is “causal intervention” GEORGE: should accept the job JIM: should kill the Indian We have to ask if “integrity” an issue in either of the two cases? Need to look at 2 Kinds of “Remoter Effect” to decide these cases For Jim & George we are talking about the relation between their projects and other people’s projects. Psychological effect on the agent: may be bad enough in these cases to cancel out the initial utilitarian advantage. The “Psychological Effect” occurs because he thinks he has done the wrong thing. Psychological Effect This is NOT a valid reason from the utilitarian perspective – what matters is the balance BEFORE invoking the feelings. The Utilitarian argument has more force in Jim’s case – because George’s feelings are a bigger part of the situation – and Jim’s feelings are a smaller part of the overall situation. To claim that Jim is self-indulgent is not an argument, but an invitation to reconsider the situation in a utilitarian light Integrity The common element in both situations is that if George or Jim don’t do the unpleasant thing, someone else will. [and in Jim’s case, the outcome will be demonstrably worse.] Williams argues that, if Pedro shoots Jim may be responsible, but he didn’t MAKE it happen. [That would reduce Pedro to a pawn with no selfdetermination—that Jim’s saying no CAUSED Pedro to shoot] Williams says that the things that make people happy include making other people happy and being involved in projects. Our satisfaction does involve the projects of others [not just bare utility] Back to Jim: Here there is an intersection of projects and one project has negative aspects and should be frustrated. Thus, utility argues for Jim to kill the one. But what if it conflicts with some project of mine? [Remember that Utilitarianism relies on the calculation before my interests are considered.] Williams asks if this is adequate when there are projects that we consider commitments? Projects that are Commitments For example: A medical doctor pledges to alleviate suffering and do no harm. You may be a pacifist or a vegetarian etc… Or anti-capital punishment [holding these views for well thought out reasons] It’s not the loss of utility when our projects are frustrated. According to Williams itt violates our core beliefs -- who we are. Williams argues that we IDENTIFY with our projects It is that a person is IDENTIFIED with his/her projects – who we are flows from them. To ask Jim and George to follow the utilitarian analysis is an attack on their integrity. [who they are as persons] So the questions are: How deep is George’s revulsion at the kind of research? And how strong is Jim’s opposition to killing a person? Rather than: which is the lesser of 2 evils. QUESTION Does this get around the Utilitarian’s view that, in the end moral convictions, are held on consequentialist grounds?