Review: How Nielsen argues his CASES

1. Review: How Nielsen argues his CASES 1. In the “Magistrate & Mob” scapegoat case a Utilitarian could argue that Utilitarianism doesn’t require the death of an innocent person. According to Nielsen why? • Utilitarians can differ on the consequences [facts] that must be considered. 2. In the “Cave” case he argues that the death of an innocent person is neither • the result of corrupt moral natures • nor decided without taking into account the “fat man’s” interests.

2. Bernard William’s Critique of Utilitarianism Williams argues that: • Utilitarianism violates moral integrity because it requires us to reject conscienceandour personal ideals for the lesser of two evils. • Williams is asking what the role of our conscience and/or feelings in moral decision making - our moral commitments.

3. The Utilitarian concept of “negative responsibility” Williams believes that the Utilitarian concept of “negative responsibility” is the source of the violation of personal integrity. • Definition of NEGATIVE RESPONSIBILITY: We are responsible not only for the consequences of our actions, but also for the consequences of our non-actions. • A Utilitarian [such as Nielsen] believes that to NOT choose is to be evasive.

4. Why does William focus on “negative responsibility”? • It is because Utilitarianism focuses on situations. [called “states of affairs”] • States of affairs = situations in the world that are factual. • The focus on situations produces the idea of “negative responsibility” – our responsibility for both what we do and don’t do or prevent. • Williams thinks we should focus on something other than “states of affairs” , for him that would be “moral integrity

5. Impartiality & Negative Reponsibility According to a Utilitarian, “Negative Responsibility” ensures “impartiality” • “it’s me” is never a morally comprehensible reason for a Utilitarian • Williams argues that other non-consequentialist moral theories have value of IMPARTIALITY [how achieve?] Williams: If, as Utilitarians argue, the identity of agent is not important – all that is left is “causal intervention”

6. According to Utilitarianism If, as Utilitarians argue, the identity of agent is not important– all that is left is “causal intervention” • GEORGE: should accept the job • JIM: should kill the Indian • We have to ask if “integrity” an issue in either of the two cases?

7. Need to look at 2 Kinds of “Remoter Effect” to decide these cases • For Jim & George we are talking about the relation between their projects and other people’s projects. • Psychological effect on the agent: may be bad enough in these cases to cancel out the initial utilitarian advantage. • The “Psychological Effect” occurs because he thinks he has done the wrong thing.

8. Psychological Effect • This is NOT a valid reason from the utilitarian perspective – what matters is the balance BEFORE invoking the feelings. • The Utilitarian argument has more force in Jim’s case – because George’s feelings are a bigger part of the situation – and Jim’s feelings are a smaller part of the overall situation. • To claim that Jim is self-indulgent is not an argument, but an invitation to reconsider the situation in a utilitarian light

9. Integrity The common element in both situations is that if George or Jim don’t do the unpleasant thing, someone else will. [and in Jim’s case, the outcome will be demonstrably worse.] • Williams argues that, if Pedro shoots Jim may be responsible, but he didn’t MAKE it happen. [That would reduce Pedro to a pawn with no self-determination—that Jim’s saying no CAUSED Pedro to shoot] • Williams says that the things that make people happy include making other people happy and being involved in projects. Our satisfaction does involve the projects of others [not just bare utility]

10. Back to Jim: Here there is an intersection of projects and one project has negative aspects and should be frustrated. Thus, utility argues for Jim to kill the one. • But what if it conflicts with some project of mine? [Remember that Utilitarianism relies on the calculation before my interests are considered.] • Williams asks if this is adequate when there are projects that we consider commitments?

11. Projects that are Commitments For example: A medical doctor pledges to alleviate suffering and do no harm. You may be a pacifist or a vegetarian etc… Or anti-capital punishment [holding these views for well thought out reasons] • It’s not the loss of utility when our projects are frustrated. According to Williams itt violates our core beliefs -- who we are.

12. Williams argues that we IDENTIFY with our projects It is that a person is IDENTIFIED with his/her projects – who we are flows from them. • To ask Jim and George to follow the utilitarian analysis is an attack on their integrity. [who they are as persons] • So the questions are: • How deep is George’s revulsion at the kind of research? • And how strong is Jim’s opposition to killing a person? • Rather than: which is the lesser of 2 evils.

13. QUESTION Does this get around the Utilitarian’s view that, in the end moral convictions, are held on consequentialist grounds?