This is my argument on why Bernard Williams' criticisms toward utilitarianism are too strong for the utilitarian to overcome.
Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics that defines a morally right action to be one that maximizes happiness. In Utilitarianism and Integrity, Bernard Williams criticizes utilitarianism by introducing scenarios and speculating what utilitarianism might say about them, what we might say about utilitarianism, and what would be implied by certain ways of thinking about the scenarios. I will argue that the utilitarian cannot overcome Williams’ criticisms, because the utilitarian is unable to understand integrity and cannot coherently describe the relationship between one’s values and one’s actions.
Williams begins by introducing two scenarios. In the first scenario, a man named George who needs money is faced with the dilemma of accepting a decently paid job that conflicts his moral views. In the second scenario, a man named Pedro has the intention of killing twenty Indians but offers an option to a man named Jim to kill one Indian to save the remaining nineteen Indians. Because utilitarianism is concerned only with taking the course of action that maximizes total benefit, Williams believes that utilitarianism replies that George should accept the job and that Jim should kill the Indian.
He then examines two remoter effects (i.e. general effects) considered by the utilitarian to avoid counterexamples: psychological effect and precedent effect. First, he examines the psychological effect. Williams states, “If [George and Jim] take the course which seemed at first the utilitarian one, the effects on them will be in fact bad enough and extensive enough to cancel out the initial utilitarian advantages of that course.” However, he points out that the utilitarian would reply that the serious psychological effects inflicted upon George and Jim are irrational because their decisions brought about the best consequences. Second, he examines the precedent effect. While this may be relevant to other scenarios, Williams points out that this effect is not relevant to either George’s or Jim’s scenarios because George’s scenario is private and Jim’s scenario is unique. Therefore, it is improbable that George’s and Jim’s decisions will influence others in subsequent, similar situations. While there is little room to criticize the precedent effect because it is irrelevant, Williams strongly criticizes the psychological effect.
Williams argues that the utilitarian’s response to the psychological effects is flawed. He states, “We are partially at least not utilitarians, and cannot regard our moral feelings merely as objects of utilitarian value.” He is implying that it is only logical to claim that George’s and Jim’s negative psychological effects are irrational if and only if they are utilitarians, because such a claim completely disregards their moral feelings. He develops a counterexample in which the majority in a society decides to wipe out a racial minority because they conclude wiping out the minority brings about the best consequences. Williams believes it is wrong that, according to the utilitarian, the feelings of injustice that the majority may experience in this scenario are completely irrational; he believes integrity should not be ignored. After examining both the psychological and precedent effects, Williams discusses integrity by first analyzing the utilitarian notion of negative responsibility.
According to the utilitarian, we are responsible for the negative consequences that may arise from refraining from an action. To criticize, Williams analyzes Jim’s scenario: “What occurs if Jim refrains from action is not solely twenty Indians dead, but Pedro’s killing twenty Indians, and that is not a result which Pedro brings about, though the death of the Indians is… it is misleading to think, in such a case, of Jim having an effect on the world through the medium 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.” In this statement, Williams implies that it is more revealing to think in terms of the effects of Pedro’s actions on Jim’s decision rather than Jim’s actions on Pedro’s decision; Pedro has the power to allow the Indians to live regardless of Jim’s decision, so Pedro, instead of Jim, is responsible for the Indians’ lives. Williams believes this analysis of Jim’s scenario serves as an effective criticism against the utilitarian notion of negative responsibility.
After criticizing the notion of negative responsibility, Williams further criticizes utilitarianism by explaining its attack on integrity. In his final criticism, Williams reveals the unreasonable demands that utilitarianism entails on one’s personal projects (i.e. goals) and commitments (i.e. values). Williams asks, “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?” By this, he means that it is absurd to demand of one to step aside from one’s integrity to fulfill others’ projects and commitments for the sake of maximizing utility because one’s integrity may be one’s greatest importance.
While Williams’ criticisms are reasonable, let us examine Williams’ criticisms from the utilitarian’s point of view. Williams’ criticism that utilitarianism has no regard for one’s integrity (i.e. strong ethics, by definition) may not be plausible because utilitarianism is, by definition, a theory in normative ethics in which one should act to maximize utility; utilitarianism is a type of ethics. The utilitarian may argue that it is a contradiction to claim that a theory in normative ethics has no regard for ethical beliefs. On the other hand, it may be more correct to claim instead that utilitarianism is incongruent with deontology.
Now, let us reexamine one of the remoter effects, the psychological effect. Given that the utilitarian may argue that utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics, the counterexample that Williams provided regarding the majority wiping out the minority may not be a plausible criticism anymore. The utilitarian may argue that the utility gained by the majority outweighs the utility lost by wiping out the minority and, because utilitarianism is an ethical theory, Williams may be unable to say that wiping out the minority ignores morality. In George’s and Jim’s scenarios, the utilitarian may now safely argue that, to maximize utility, George should take the job for money and Jim should shoot one Indian to save the remaining nineteen.
The utilitarian may also disagree with Williams’ criticism against the notion of negative responsibility. Because utilitarianism is an ethical theory, the utilitarian may argue that refraining from an action is unethical only if it does not maximize utility; the utilitarian is uninhibited from always choosing the course of action that maximizes utility and will not experience the negative consequences that may arise from refraining from an action. This means only Jim’s actions on Pedro’s decision should be taken into consideration, and Jim should not consider refraining from shooting an Indian.
While the utilitarian may have valid defenses, I believe Williams’ criticisms are still stronger. It appears that the utilitarian’s strongest defense is, because utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics by definition, it is unreasonable to assert that utilitarianism ignores integrity and ethics. However, regardless of whether or not utilitarianism is an ethical theory, Williams may reaffirm that utilitarianism is flawed with the following argument: under utilitarianism one’s values are alwaysmeaningless compared to maximizing utility, “we are partially not at least utilitarians,” so therefore maximizing utility is not always rational. For example, if Jim is not a utilitarian and decides to shoot an Indian, the long term psychological effects may counteract the initial utilitarian advantages of taking that course of action. This argument effectively reveals two fundamental flaws of utilitarianism: it is impossible to perfectly calculate consequences of an action, and attempting to maximize utility may be feasible only if one is a utilitarian because it is psychologically demanding. Because maximizing utility may not always be feasible, the utilitarian’s defense from Williams’ criticism against negative responsibility is effectively debunked. Now that we have criticized the rationality of the utilitarian, let us further criticize that the utilitarian cannot coherently describe the relations between one’s values and one’s actions.
Williams can further reaffirm that utilitarianism is flawed by criticizing the utilitarian’s inability to understand one’s projects and commitments. In his final paragraph, Williams nails the utilitarian’s coffin with the following statement: “[Utilitarianism] is to make [a man] 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.” By this, Williams asserts that one’s integrity ultimately defines one’s identity and is therefore far too valuable to be sacrificed for what a utilitarian believes to be an optimal decision. Because utilitarianism denies what is most important to one’s identity, the theory is fundamentally flawed and the utilitarian is unable to overcome Williams’ criticisms.
Williams’ main argument is that utilitarianism fails because ignoring oneself’s integrity is the only way to consistently attempt to maximize utility. He builds into this argument by analyzing George’s and Jim’s scenarios, the remoter effects, negative responsibility, and utilitarianism’s attack on integrity. Through analyzing both Williams’ and the utilitarian’s criticisms and defenses, I have pointed out three fundamental flaws of utilitarianism: perfectly calculating consequences is not feasible, trying to maximize utility is psychologically demanding, and utilitarianism ignores integrity. Thus, I conclude that the utilitarian cannot overcome Williams’ criticisms, because the utilitarian is unable to understand integrity and cannot coherently describe the relations between one’s values and one’s actions.