It is a normative theory that defines the morality of an action on whether it is right or wrong, based on the result (Mulgan, 2014) . This theory has three principles that serve as the motto for utilitarianism. One of the dictums is that pleasure and happiness is the only valuable outcome of the action. Secondly, if any action promotes happiness then its right, the action is wrong when it is creating unhappiness. Lastly, happiness is equal; there is nothing like more or less happiness. The happiness does not carry any weight.
However, individuals have criticized this moral theory. Bernard Williams, the professor of philosophy at the University of California and Oxford University, was one of the people those who criticized Utilitarianism.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Bernard Williams' criticisms of Utilitarianism
The professor of philosophy had several objections to this ethical theory. One of the criticisms is negative responsibility. This moral approach holds individuals responsible for not stopping an action, which leads to more loss. Utilitarianism supports a wrong move as long as it yields more benefits than a loss. An illustration of this phenomenon is the case of Jim, Pedro, and the Indians. Jim was given an offer by Pedro in, which he was to kill one Indian and save the nineteen or to spare one of them and all of them will die.
If Jim decides to kill one person to save the nineteen, according to the Utilitarianism, this is a correct action. This theory according to Williams does not take into account an individual as a moral agent, but just a casual interventionist. Utilitarianism demands that an individual should perform an act like the way Jim did, and whose consequences we cannot live -with. Consequentialism is a principle in which this theory functions on demands that we should identify ‘what is good preceding what is right.’ Jim, according to Utilitarianism, will be held responsible for not sparing the nineteen Indians, by only killing one Indian, in case Pedro kills all of them. According to Williams, moral integrity does not allow us to execute one Indian or to let all the twenty individuals die.
Additionally, William claims that the utilitarianism is too demanding. In the case of George, he needs the job, but its demand is against his consciousness. George feels that participating in the production of biological warfare is morally wrong. The Utilitarianism approves him taking the position, the idea being, someone else might take up the job and the make the worst weapons than he could. The theory responds that being moral is not easy and it requires hard answers to simple questions. Williams disagrees with the ethical argument, since it assumes that not acting to a wrong situation is being immoral, by punishing those who do not stop an illegal action, causes more unhappiness than happiness.
The theory, according to Williams, should not force individuals to be moral all the time. For example, it should not stop individuals from enjoying themselves because they should direct their resources to the less fortunate in the society. He continues to say that human beings like to put their welfare, commitment, and relationships first.
Furthermore, Utilitarianism does not exercise justice and fairness. This ethical theory dwells so much on the benefits, while not minding the consequences. It acknowledges that some effects must accompany an action, which has advantages. Nevertheless, utility maximization is the only thing for this theory. In the case of Jim, the condition set by Pedro means that an action needs to be performed despite the psychological effects. The philosophy sees sparing of the nineteen people at the expense of one person as justice. Williamsons say that there is no justice to the one Indian person, who the theory agrees the elimination is moral. In the case of George, the ethical theory does not care of his belief; it believes that his inaction means that another person whose intentions are unlimited can occupy the position.
Lastly, Williamsons question the integrity of utilitarianism. Performing an act even though there is an objection, is okay as per the ethical theory. This is as long as it brings happiness. However, there is no integrity in performing a deed, whose outcome will be inclusive of consequences. A person of integrity, as in the case of Jim, cannot kill so that he can feel happy because of the prevention of murder of the remaining nineteen people. In the case of George, accepting the job will bring happiness to his home and the old chemist, but it will have adverse effects on the people, who the biological warfare will be directed to. To have Exercise integrity in both Jim and George cases is when there is no action.
Opinion
Bernard Williams’ criticisms on Utilitarianism are trustworthy and valid. His disapproval on the ethical theory demand is correct as it makes things, which matters to an individual, to be labeled immoral. With the main aim being happiness, restraining an individual from doing what he thinks is right, so that they can do what it seems to be right would in the end, bring about unhappiness.
Moreover, his condemnation of the ethical theory as being unfair is solid and called for. Utilitarianism focuses on benefits than the loss, but it does not consider the rights or importance of what it describes as a loss. Killing one person to save others is an injustice to the individual shot. More so, it will bring unhappiness to those who are spared.
Besides, holding individuals as being responsible, for what they refuse to participate in, when they feel that it will psychologically affect them, is not valid. I agree that individual’s negative responsibility is one of the weaknesses of this ethical theory, as also noted by Williamsons.
Reference
Mulgan, T. (2014). Understanding utilitarianism. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.
