Food for Thought or the Straw That Stirs the Drink?

As suggested in the chapter’s title, Bernard Williams uses Consequentialism and Its Critics as a forum to discuss the notion of consequentialism and integrity. Essentially, consequentialism is the thought that moral judgment centers on the consequences of an action. According to Williams, a “distinctive mark of consequentialism might rather be this, that it regards the value of actions as always consequential … and not intrinsic” (21). It is his understanding that the only thing to have intrinsic value is states of affairs; however, the utilitarians feel that some actions must have intrinsic value as well (i.e. happiness). In response, Williams says that even though man might find an action to be pleasurable, it does not guarantee that these feelings will be attained every time because it may not be meant to be this way. Williams continues onward with his discourse by stating that the belief that the right action as that which maximizes the good is an “objective notion in this sense, that it is perfectly possible for an agent to be ignorant or mistaken, and non-culpably ignorant and mistaken about what is the right action in the circumstances” (23). If the agent consciously chooses the right alternative, the action will be right in virtue of its casual properties, particularly because it maximizes the good state of affairs (24).

Now that Williams provided the necessary framework for consequentialism, he introduces two scenarios dealing with negative responsibility, or the notion that “if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent” (31). In the first example, George is a man with a strong background in chemistry and is having great difficulty finding a job. One day, an older chemist approaches him and offers him with the opportunity to research chemical and biological warfare. George refuses to have his beliefs shaken and knows he must turn down this offer; instead, the job will likely go to a contemporary who has no qualms with CBW. In the second scenario, Jim is an explorer in South America who stumbles upon a group of twenty Indians held hostage by Pedro, a captain. Trapped, Jim was given the option by Pedro to kill one Indian and set the other nineteen free or, if he rejects this, all twenty will be murdered. After dreaming of pulling of a heroic deed, Jim finds himself facing reality and must make a decision. To the utilitarian and consequentialist, George should accept the job and Jim should kill the Indian. However, the big difference that Williams wants to address is what are the considerations that come into play when arriving at an answer, not simply the rightness of the answer (34-35).

Next, Williams begins his discussion on the two effects that are invoked by utilitarians. The first mentioned is the psychological effect on the agent. There is a chance that if Jim decides to kill this Indian, he will pay mentally. In doing so, “the effects on the will be in fact bad enough and extensive enough to cancel out the initial utilitarian advantages of that course” (36). The issue then becomes how much weight should feelings hold. Williams makes an argument that it should have no bearing, but the utilitarian would say that giving weight would serve as encouragement (37). The other effect Williams mentions is the precedent effect. This, as you can deduce, deals with the effects a precedent may establish for others. Williams points out that it is imperative to keep in mind whether the scenario is realistic and plausible. George’s quandary is not in a public situation that is sufficient and Jim’s predicament is extraordinarily extreme (41).

In his final section entitled “Integrity,” Williams seems to more or less recount what it is to be a utilitarian and the duties that ought to be carried out. For instance, he states that “he [utilitarian] has the general project of bringing about maximally desirable outcomes” (44). To Williams, it is critical to be involved in something else if happiness is to be attained. So, in order for a utilitarian to maximize happiness, he or she must not only continue on the pursuit of happiness, but also pursue other things. In doing so, the utilitarian might identify themselves with these outside objects and be happier than had those projects not existed (46-47).

I found this piece of literature to be both dense and rich with information. The two examples involving George and Jim were a nice way of slowing the pace and providing the reader with something tangible. Even though they were merely used to prove/clarify a point, I would have liked it more had he included a more realistic scenario (Williams, too, seems to admit that they are a bit far-fetched). Other than that, I actually do not know how I feel about this article. I seemed to have read it like a nonpartisan who was trying to understand the arguments posed by Bernard Williams. When I finished, I felt as if I had understood the majority of what he had written, but I cannot definitively say that I am buying/rejecting what he is selling. Instead, it seemed to provide food for thought more so than something that stirs the emotions. Comments? Reactions?