Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Character and Integrity (Crisp (Negative responsibility (Each of us is…
Character and Integrity
Jim the explorer, while exploring, comes across a tribe, whose leader is about to kill 20 prisoners. The leader offers a deal to Jim: either Jim kills one of the prisoners and the rest walk free, or Jim does nothing and all 20 are killed.
If Jim does not act, is he still responsible for the death of 19 of the prisoners? The principles of utilitarianism seem to suggest that Jim would, in fact, be responsible for these deaths, as Jim’s choice not to shoot the one prisoner results in the aggregate pain of 20 people.
George
George, by taking the job, would be causing the greatest amount of happiness as he would be able to provide for his family, while refusing the job would result in pain for his family, while nuclear warfare would remain inevitable. However, many would argue that this is unsatisfactory as George would be sacrificing his moral beliefs.
George is a scientist who is asked to work at a factory for nuclear warfare, which George is massively set against. However, if he does not take the job, the factory will simply find someone equally or better qualified to do his job.
-
Williams
Williams uses these two examples to illustrate various problems with utilitarianism and the assumptions it makes. The first of these problems is to do with negative responsibility, and is illustrated best by Jim’s situation. The second problem seems to be of integrity, and can be seen best in the scenario of George the scientist.
-
Does not object to the conclusion, but how obvious the conclusion would be to a utilitarian, and the utilitarian way of looking at the dilemma
Distinction between blame and moral responsibility - but it is responsibility that is in question anyway
'Utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator'
Utilitarianism is not concerned with the distribution of welfare, but its aggregation
It ignores the separateness of persons - from our POV, it can matter a lot whether a certain good happens to me, you, a stranger or a loved one
How well off individuals are makes a difference to the distribution of welfare - utilitarianism fails to capture the importance of each agent living their own life and having personal attachments
Crisp
Integrity is not a motive - the agents are not concerned with their own integrity, but being moved in the way that they are is a way of preserving their own integrity
One response is that only a very unsophisticated utilitarian would reach these conclusions in this way
Negative responsibility
Each of us is only responsible for what he does - is there a difference between omitting to act or allowing certain events and from actually causing them to happen through your own actions?
Williams: 'if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself...bring about'
An example of ordinary intuitions coming apart from the utilitarian assumptions e.g. we should not expect that all people in the developed world are morally responsible for the deaths in the third world they could've prevented by donating
Making morality less demanding might lead to maximising utility in the long run , and ultimately moral education should shape humanity so that our happiness overlaps with the general happiness
To what extent should emotions feature in moral decision making? Utilitarianism fails to give sufficient weight to moral emotions -
-