Summary Of Bernard Williams Critique Of Utilitarianism

Bernard Williams' "Critique of Utilitarianism" focuses on posing objections to and looking at philosophical problems of utilitarianism. According to utilitarian theory, actions can only be made if they produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Williams believes that this factor cannot be the only consideration in making decisions, like utilitarianism claims it is. He uses an example in his text to illustrate and better explain his objections to the theory, which will be further discussed in this paper.

Williams explains a situation in which Jim accidentally wanders upon twenty captives tied up with an army that has guns pointed at them. Jim is faced with the moral dilemma of choosing between either killing one captive in order to spare the lives of the other captives, or refusing to kill the one and thereby allowing Pedro the soldier to kill all twenty captives. According to the theory of utilitarianism, the obvious choice would be for Jim to kill the one captive, sparing the lives of nineteen others. This choice would lead to the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people – having nineteen people given their lives back.

However, Williams argues that this decision should not be so obvious.
Williams argues that utilitarianism, especially in Jim’s example, is an attack on one’s integrity, which I agree with. In the classical sense of the word, integrity is “psychic wholeness”, a state of undividedness, a unified sense of self. In a related sense of the word, to have integrity is to stand by one’s commitments and moral obligations, which is what I feel utilitarianism does not take into consideration as being an important factor in decision making.
To ask someone to set aside their deeply held projects, reactions, and impulses that are shaped by his/her morals and act so as to maximize overall goodness is to abstract them from their own identity. Utilitarianism would have that “there is no comprehensible difference which consists just in my bringing about a certain outcome rather than someone else’s producing it” (96). As long as the same amount of good is being produced, it does not matter who produces it. Given this, the evaluation of Jim’s action is made solely in terms of its role in producing some outcome which is measured in terms of its utility to the overall good. The relevance of certain individuals gets thrown away in this impersonal moral measure. For a Utilitarian, there is no morally significant relation between a person and his action. All that matters in the moral calculation is the action’s (or inaction’s) relation to producing/impeding overall utility. Therefore, morally, if Jim chooses to not kill the one captive, his inaction makes him equally as responsible for death of the other twenty captives – no matter how he actually feels about the situation.
Like many of our moral compasses tell us, there is a very good chance that Jim could not bear to actually pull the trigger and kill another human. So, when the utilitarian theory demands that he performs an act of which the consequences he cannot bear to “live with,” this seems to show complete disrespect in regard to his integrity as an individual. This is because it requires him to give up the things he identifies with and most cares about to the utilitarian equation of overall general happiness. Jim is forced to be willing to cast his beliefs and values aside if they’re not considered important compared to the rest of the population’s happiness. The connection of Jim’s actions with his morals, ideals and attitudes he closely identifies with is unimportant and irrelevant in this translation. For this reason, the theory of utilitarianism requires individuals to think of themselves as less important than what they really are. As a result, Williams sees utilitarianism as inconsiderate of an individual’s general views and ideas of morality.
To further the point of integrity being undervalued or ignored, I argue that utilitarianism would follow that any sort of squeamishness on Jim’s part in planning to kill the one captive to save the others is irrational. According to the theory, the obvious and correct decision is to kill a person and therefore any sense of hesitancy Jim has towards this action must simply be unimportant. A utilitarian should suggest that any squeamishness felt by Jim is actually seen as self-indulgent and should be ignored rather than valued or followed, which to me, is absurd. Any human being with any sort of sense of morality would certainly hesitate when given a decision to kill another person. Utilitarianism would have us believe that Jim’s moral feelings towards an act is another impersonal element to be added into the equation of “greatest happiness for the greatest number of people”. If Jim is unhappy about doing some act, then it will have to be weighed against everything else in the equation. Utilitarianism would hold that Jim’s unhappiness, or moral feelings, is not a considerable factor in this decision. Again, attacking one’s sense of integrity and sense of individualism.
Even if everything I have argued is true, Williams suggests that it could be possible that maybe as a population, we should just forget about integrity, as long as giving it up increases the general good in the world. Maybe there are times when our integrity and sense of self gets in the way of something that is so obviously more important. For example, say a man falls in love with a woman and values her over anything else. Giving her up would be compromising his integrity. However, this particular woman has the chance to leave him in order to travel abroad and medically treat sick children. It seems that the obvious choice would be for the man to give up what is most important to him for the greater good of saving lives. This counterexample shows a possibility where integrity could be forgotten because of how it affects general happiness for all, showing that the utilitarian view could hold.
This is a very extreme case that seems unlikely to be possible, but you could say it is similar to Williams’ example with Jim in that sense.

If something like this were to occur, however, the man’s integrity in this case is based on his own self-interest, his love for a woman. In Jim’s case, his integrity was based on being morally good. Having hesitation for killing someone could definitely be considered a universal moral good, whereas the man’s love for one woman could be seen as egotistic. So, if this man has a sense of good morality, the easy decision would be to let the woman go anyway. He could be making this decision to promote the happiness of the general population or he could be doing it because it is morally the right thing to do, thus making this example not so matter of fact a utilitarian

view.
I think that Williams’ thought experiment brings up a compelling objection to utilitarianism. Our reactions and moral obligations are things that make us human. If things like hesitation and resistance to a gruesome act are irrelevant in the eyes of a utilitarian, then nothing seems to distinguish human beings from any other being. As long as an action produces some outcome for the greater good, a utilitarian would argue that it does not matter which individual performs that action. Utilitarianism tends to force individuals to give up their sense of integrity, even if that integrity is morally right. In the thought experiment, Williams shows that utilitarianism does not take into account how an individual morally feels about a decision. Jim’s reservations about shooting the one captive are seen as an unimportant factor in his decision. On top of that, any sort of squeamishness he feels while pulling the trigger is seen as self-indulgent to a utilitarian, because killing the one captive is the correct choice and should be done immediately. To me, and to Williams, this sort of thinking dilutes utilitarianism’s ability to answer practical questions. A sense of self and a sense of moral integrity should be important factors when making a practical decision, and this thought experiment shows how these things can be disregarded with a utilitarian mindset.