Williams and Utilitarianism Essay Example for Free

Williams and usefulism EssayIn his critique of usefulism, Williams finds fault in the utile commitment to supreme usefulness in that it undermines the honor of moral agents and denies people the projects and relationships they integrally value. Famously known as his Integrity objection, this proposition is immediately very enticing in that it appeals to the idea of the invaluable and imperative nature of kindliness and compassion, versus the cold, impartial hand of Utilitarianism. That is non to say, however, that Utilitarians occupy been dealt a hefty criticism from which they guard no defense. go Williams may be correct in claiming that abandoning commitments or devaluing personal relationships may be counterintuitive, a Utilitarian could debate that his construction of integrity is equ exclusivelyy counterintuitive in that it would require integrity to override their inalienable pursuit of self- preservation. Additionally, if we were to presuppose Williams corr ectness, a Utilitarian could argue that the unaccompanied plausible implementation of much(prenominal) a guess would mean valuing these stimulated engagements above iodins own agency, a scenario even more(prenominal) demanding and sacrificial of superstars identity than the Utilitarian proposal.Williams directs this objection specifically toward Act-Utilitarianism, a branch of Utilitarian thought that deems the morally correct action as the adept that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. He claims that such a theory is incompatible with the aspect of homosexual happiness that is ready up in the commitment to personal projects and relationships Utilitarianism would do well then to acknowledge the evident fact that among the things that gain people happy is not only making other people happy, but being interpreted up or involved in any of a vast range of projects.1 trance Utilitarians actually need trim order projects comprised o f relationships and commitments in order to validate their higher order projects, the lower order projects will eternally serve the concerns of the first order. In turn, Williams asserts that such a compromise of emotional engagements for maximum utility usurps ones sense of self, consequently marring the distinction between ones commitment and ones identity ( ) that criterion would eliminate any desire at all which was not blankly and in the most straightforward sense egoistic.Thus we should be abridged to frankly egoistic first-order projects, and- for all essential purposes- the one second-order utilitarian project of maximally satisfying first-order projects. 2Abandoning certain commitments for the interest group of another project can be acceptable, but when forced to relinquish those which a person deeply values, Williams argues they argon robbed of a sense of ones moral identity or what he describes as ones integrity.Williams offers us 2 scenarios to further exemplify hi s theory Jim, who is told by the edicts of utilitarianism to murder one innocent Amazon Indian in order to prevent twenty more being murdered, and George, a chemist who is (also by the parameters of Utilitarianism) forced to take a job creating weapons of mass destruction, since the balance-sheet of utilities shows that if George refuses, a far younger, more zealous chemist will carry the project along even further and more efficiently than George.While these scenarios may seem like far-fetched constructions meant to reveal Utilitarianism pursuing the wrong choice, Williams conversely (perhaps begrudgingly) admits that these would be the near choices for the given circumstances. The true problem, he argues, is 1? CITATION? 112? 2? CITATION? 113? ?that the emphasis should not obviously be on the rightness of the action but the considerations involved in reaching that conclusion. This is a have of Utilitarianism Williams claims cuts out a consideration which for some others defy s a difference to what they feel about such cases. 3 He continues to explain that excluding such considerations denies our sense of personal accountability for our own actions and in turn proves integrity as a value more or less intelligible.4 In sum, if we were to reduce Williams entire integrity objection to its most salient points, they would be the following the emotional commitments that atomic number 18 incompatible with the parameters of Act- Utilitarianism are not only impossible to abandon entirely but are an built-in facet of human happiness, therefore creating a dilemma for the Utilitarian in that they must allow for it. The electromotive force defense of a Utilitarian to Williams objection begins with the examination of his construction of integrity, which he seems to define as ones sense of self.Looking simply at this definition alone, it could be said that subjectivity suggested with this variety of integrity incorrectly presupposes that a persons sense of their i dentity is always correct. Utilitarianism could make a claim for the value in assessing reality with the sort of impartiality that Williams rejects, seeing as if one is not being appraised objectively, their sense of self is entirely contingent on their own conception.More importantly, and the crux of the matter of the Utilitarian defense, is that while Williams is correct in his claim that abandoning these emotional entanglements is counterintuitive, maintaining such commitments are at betting odds with the human desire for self-preservation, a 3? CITATION? p99? 4? CITATION? p99? ? conflict that Utilitarianism not only recognizes but Williams does not offer any viable solution for.Based on his examples and criticisms of Utilitarianism, it could be inferred that Williams assumes that we have a moral pact to help others in a time of crisis, that one has an inherent debt instrument to compassion and kindliness. This is clearly in conflict with the Utilitarian theory that ones resp onsibility is to maximum utility, so even if the Utilitarian were to concede to Williams objection, it would be incredible to imagine a scenario in which the two could be regarded as being of equal value.In turn, the only option available to maintaining this ethos of selflessness would be to regard it as superior to maximum utility. This, a Utilitarian could argue, could prove to be exceedingly problematic. Firstly, it is extremely unrealistic to assume that people have the capacity to function entirely out of selflessness. Even though kind-heartedness and emotional attachment can provide a certain level of happiness and fulfillment to a person, the expectation to unilaterally value the welfare of others over our own is not only implausible but ultimately self-defeating.Abandoning or betraying commitments in order to further advance a larger more important agenda certainly isnt an idea particular to Utilitarianism. A quick browse of a history textbook would support that, by and large, humans are inherently self-serving and while one may commit to an act, cause or person, it does not necessarily mean that they themselves arent using such relationships for their own agency.Utilitarianism may require that a person abandon a particular commitment for the interestingness of the greater good, but it can certainly be said that in the absence of utilitarianism, the commitment could be abandoned anyway, except in this case it would be for a self-serving purpose. A Utilitarian could potentially argue that their moral theory simply recognizes and curbs the inwardly focused desires of mankind and attempts to redirect such indigence toward the greater good. One could argue that Williams is somewhat disillusioned with mankind as he makes sweeping idealizations of the human psyche.Williams examples of Jim and George seem to two be contingent on the idea that what makes said examples disconcerting is premise that both men would be acting against their conscience, in tur n making the assumption that all people have consciences that should be considered. Secondly, if one could clear the hurdle of the first argument, the actual implementation of such a theory is extremely difficult. Williams argues that Utilitarianism is far too demanding to be plausible but in fact, trading this impartiality for benevolence proves to be far more exhausting.Considering the worlds current state of affairs, there are always people in dire need of help, so one calls into question exactly what parameters would be set in place in order to orchestrate such a society. What would be the stipulations of a deserving recipient of anothers benevolence? If Williams was simply talking about peoples obligation to those close to them, valuing those relationships above maximum utility creates a bias that is even more incompatible with benevolence than Utilitarianism, which at least works in the interest of the entire population.A Utilitarian could also argue that it simply because th ey are outweighed by maximum utility does not mean that substantial relationships are not valued in Utilitarianism. While they are indeed lower order projects, a Utilitarian could make an argument that it is through maintaining such relationships that the value of ones own welfare is realized and are only outweighed by serious interests of first order projects.The analyses above reflect the same conclusion. Williams objection brings to lightsomeness shortcomings in Utilitarianism that are easily felt by those uncomfortable with the impartial and seemingly unfeeling Utilitarian mentality. However, the arguments put forth by Williams regarding the counterintuitive and overly demanding nature of impartiality neglect the similarly inherent and insatiable desire for self-preservation.