Advocating The Notion Of Utilitarianism Through Bernard Williams’ Example Cases

In this essay I will argue that it is always morally obligated to do what’ll result in the most happiness for the most people. Through Bernard Williams’ example cases I will defend the notion of utilitarianism, arguing that his claims in opposition are not enough to disregard the moral obligations to do what is beneficial for the most people.

In short, Bernard Williams uses case examples to diagnose the faults in utilitarianism, stating two main claims, first that a utilitarian take on morality shouldn’t obligate people to go against their projects (what they desire), in essence their integrity, later adding that utilitarians don’t take positive and negative responsibility into account. He eventually comes to the conclusion that utilitarianism is not always right, but how can the best for the most people be wrong? William’s first case is of a scientist who must decide on taking a job at a chemical weapons facility. By taking the job he’ll be working less diligently than the other contender (totaling less weapons and a ‘greater good’ in the end), but by refusing the job he will be abiding by his projects and moral objections. Williams argues that it’s not obvious that George the scientist ought to take the job. He makes a distinction between positive responsibility, where consequences arise from performing an action, and negative responsibility, caused by not performing an action, then uses this to argue utilitarianism. He finally points out that the choice is not obvious as it should be.

The second case showcases traveller Jim tasked with the decision between being positively responsible for 1 death, or negatively responsible for 20, in other words if he complies with south American dictator Pedro and shoots 1 villager he will be saving 19 that would’ve been shot by Pedro otherwise. Williams argues again that the answer isn’t obvious, which it should be in utilitarian thinking. Williams’ reasoning to invalidate utilitarianism fails in my opinion. His argument pertains mainly to the distinction of positive and negative responsibility and its effects on one’s projects. He emphasizes that the difference is sufficient enough that in some cases the non-utilitarian view would be the right thing to do. The result that ends with the most happiness almost always seems like the right thing to do and one person's actions, whether they are positively or negatively responsible for the outcome do not outweigh the greater good.

Referring to the second case, William stands that it could be better for Jim to be negatively responsible for the 20 deaths than positively responsible for the death of 1 villager. He showcases this as an example where it’s not right to demand someone give up their project, like not shooting anyone, for utilitarian good. In my opinion, this stance is not a reason to fault utilitarianism. In stating the following “... It would not necessarily follow that we should reject utilitarianism; however, if I am right we cannot merely do that”. William furthers his emphasis on the importance of one’s integrity and overlooks what will benefit the most people. I don’t believe that integrity can justify bringing about less general happiness.

Although he stands by his point that it’s morally wrong to make Jim shoot a villager, I believe it’s worse for Jim to let Pedro shoot the other 19 villagers. Regardless, if Jim shoots 1 villager the person that he would shoot would die in both cases, his actions would only be saving the other 19 not killing the 1 who is already dead. Williams emphasizes that Jim does not bring about Pedro bringing about the death of 20 people, but that doesn’t negate the fact that Jim’s negative responsibility results in less happiness for more people and his integrity causes more bad than good. From my perspective, Jim has a moral obligation to save the 19 villagers by sacrificing the 1 villager that would’ve died regardless because his desires to abide by his projects does not outweigh the other 19 villagers desire to live. It’s Jim’s duty to save the 19 villagers, regardless of his projects or his implications in their deaths.

As far as I can tell, Williams argument’s focus positive and negative responsibility does not hurt the utilitarian goal because it only takes into account one person projects and not that of the majority, for instance the villagers projects not to die. The counter argument can be disputed in instances like the imprisonment and torture of one child for a societies utopic living. Here the question arises of is it really more beneficial for a sufficient number more of people that the girl be tortured?