Final Exam
1. In “A Critique of Utilitarianism”, Bernard Williams argues against the fundamental characteristics of utilitarianism and believes that the notion of ends justifying the means are a way of representing the doctrine of negative responsibility which can lead to consequences from the choices we make/do not make (663). As a result, we are all responsible for the consequences that we fail to prevent as well as the ones we brought upon ourselves. That is, in each case the choice on whether an action is right is determined by its consequences (661). Williams gives the example of killing one villager to save 19 others (664) in which he critiques the different principles of utilitarianism and integrity - the moral righteousness that is …show more content…
But these actions are ones that individuals ought to do for the good of everyone; although one is degrading their integrity, they are upholding outcomes that are necessary for the good. On the other hand, not acting against moral beliefs can produce negative consequences that one is responsible for that erodes personal integrity. In Williams’ example of George not wanting to accept his job offer to work for chemical and biological warfare research to support his family, George choosing his morality maintains his integrity, but does not produce a consequence of good for his family or for someone who will receive the job with higher aspirations in the field (664). In a utilitarian response, it would require George to take the job. But based on Williams’ claims, he should not because the moral implications of working a job would degrade his integrity by essentially aiding in the killing of numerous people (664-665). If George acts and takes the job, he compromises his integrity. If he fails to act, the other man with lower morals gets the job and he aids the destruction of others and his integrity is still compromised. In this example, both paths can lead to negative consequences and possibly degrade George’s personal integrity but it would be better for him to act and take the job to support his family, thus not acting would have larger …show more content…
What we ought to do, or what we must do, is determined by morality which employs us to fulfill duties that otherwise would be wrong not to fulfill. But in Immanuel Kant’s Chapter Two of the “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”, he argues the existence of autonomy and how we can choose for ourselves what we ought to do that is vital for morality. Kant claims, “The word ‘respect’ is the only suitable expression for the esteem that a rational being must necessarily feel for such lawgiving. Autonomy is thus the basis of the dignity of human nature and of every rational nature” (336). Autonomy simply put is the ability to freely live your own life based on reasons and motives that are followed by your own choices, not the choices and influences of others (339). In addition, the principle of autonomy is to obey our behavior to principles that express of the rational will and ought to be followed along with universal
1. In “A Critique of Utilitarianism”, Bernard Williams argues against the fundamental characteristics of utilitarianism and believes that the notion of ends justifying the means are a way of representing the doctrine of negative responsibility which can lead to consequences from the choices we make/do not make (663). As a result, we are all responsible for the consequences that we fail to prevent as well as the ones we brought upon ourselves. That is, in each case the choice on whether an action is right is determined by its consequences (661). Williams gives the example of killing one villager to save 19 others (664) in which he critiques the different principles of utilitarianism and integrity - the moral righteousness that is …show more content…
But these actions are ones that individuals ought to do for the good of everyone; although one is degrading their integrity, they are upholding outcomes that are necessary for the good. On the other hand, not acting against moral beliefs can produce negative consequences that one is responsible for that erodes personal integrity. In Williams’ example of George not wanting to accept his job offer to work for chemical and biological warfare research to support his family, George choosing his morality maintains his integrity, but does not produce a consequence of good for his family or for someone who will receive the job with higher aspirations in the field (664). In a utilitarian response, it would require George to take the job. But based on Williams’ claims, he should not because the moral implications of working a job would degrade his integrity by essentially aiding in the killing of numerous people (664-665). If George acts and takes the job, he compromises his integrity. If he fails to act, the other man with lower morals gets the job and he aids the destruction of others and his integrity is still compromised. In this example, both paths can lead to negative consequences and possibly degrade George’s personal integrity but it would be better for him to act and take the job to support his family, thus not acting would have larger …show more content…
What we ought to do, or what we must do, is determined by morality which employs us to fulfill duties that otherwise would be wrong not to fulfill. But in Immanuel Kant’s Chapter Two of the “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”, he argues the existence of autonomy and how we can choose for ourselves what we ought to do that is vital for morality. Kant claims, “The word ‘respect’ is the only suitable expression for the esteem that a rational being must necessarily feel for such lawgiving. Autonomy is thus the basis of the dignity of human nature and of every rational nature” (336). Autonomy simply put is the ability to freely live your own life based on reasons and motives that are followed by your own choices, not the choices and influences of others (339). In addition, the principle of autonomy is to obey our behavior to principles that express of the rational will and ought to be followed along with universal