good essay - coursera

4

Click here to load reader

Upload: yogimgurt

Post on 21-May-2017

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Good Essay - Coursera

STATE ONE OBJECTION TO UTILITARIANISM. IS IT A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR REJECTING UTILITARIANISM? The Integrity Objection: Insufficient Grounds for Rejecting Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is the normative ethical theory that determines that an action is ethically correct if

it causes the greatest net happiness. After assessing the happiness and pain that an action will

cause to all individuals, a utilitarian determines that the action that creates the greatest net

happiness is ethically correct. Ethical theories make objective judgments about the morality of an

action. The integrity objection argues that utilitarianism is an insufficient ethical theory, because

it alienates people from their personal goals and obligates them to perform acts that should be

supererogatory. However, the integrity objection alone is insufficient grounds for rejecting

utilitarianism as an ethical theory, because the demands of utilitarianism do not undermine its

ability to make judgments about moral actions.

Using the integrity objection, Bernard Williams formulates that one should reject

utilitarianism because it requires individuals to reject their personal goals or commitments to

maximize others’ welfare. Williams defines commitments as deep-set goals integral to one’s

identity. He provides the following example to illustrate the integrity objection: Jim, a man

committed to never murdering a human, visits a town where a captain, Pedro, is about to kill

twenty Indians. Pedro decides that if Jim kills one of the Indians, he will spare the others. If Jim

does nothing, Pedro will kill all twenty Indians. Williams concludes that utilitarianism is void

because it alienates Jim from his commitment against murder.1

Williams’ argument against utilitarianism using the integrity objection fails for the

following reasons:

1 Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism, For and Against, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 98-103 .

Page 2: Good Essay - Coursera

1) A sufficient ethical theory requires objective reasoning to determine the morality of an

action.

2) An ethical theory may be demanding and may compromise the commitments of an

individual without being void.

Utilitarianism is an adequate ethical theory because it objectively determines a morally correct

action, even though it may compromise personal commitments in favor of this action. To

illustrate this rebuttal, consider the case of Werner, a Nazi general with the commitment of

killing Jews to create an Aryan race. Utilitarianism morally obligates Werner to abandon his

commitment: the harm Werner’s commitment would cause outweighs his discomfort in

abandoning the commitment. The fact that utilitarianism requires both Werner and Jim to

abandon commitments integral to their identity is not sufficient grounds to reject it as an

inadequate ethical theory. As a legitimate ethical theory, utilitarianism relies on practical reason

to guide Jim and Werner’s actions without regards to the ease of their decision processes.

Consider the case of a woman with an extreme talent for fundraising for charity who is

committed to being a good mother for her children. Using the integrity objection, Williams might

argue that utilitarianism unreasonably demands the woman to spend all her time fundraising for

charity at the expense of her commitment to being a good mother, and is therefore void. This

conclusion is inaccurate for two reasons. Firstly, humans in fact can make certain self-interested

decisions within the realm of utilitarianism,2 so the mother is not necessarily obligated to spend

all her time fundraising. Utilitarianism weighs both the happiness that she promotes through

charitable fundraising and the detriment of her neglect to her children and the society they join.

To be ethically correct, the mother would balance the weight she gives to fundraising and her

children to optimize happiness. There is a gray area in defining the weight that one should give 2 John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, (Hayes Barton Press: 1939), 18.

Peter Singer� 10/14/13 4:09 AMComment [1]: This  is  a  controversial  claim.    Citing  Mill  in  support  isn’t  enough.    I  know  that  space  is  limited,  but  it  would  be  good  to  say  more  about  how  this  is  compatible  with  the  utilitarian  principle.  

Page 3: Good Essay - Coursera

to one’s own commitments versus helping others, but its existence does not undermine

utilitarianism.

Secondly, utilitarianism’s standards are high, but the fact that people may not readily

adopt or achieve these standards does not delegitimize them or utilitarianism as an ethical theory.

Granted, even after some fundraising, which Williams might consider supererogatory, the

mother’s actions are not morally perfect unless they optimize net happiness. However, the

mother is not just either moral or immoral; different degrees of morality exist in utilitarianism. A

utilitarian acknowledges that an heiress who buys a moderately-priced coat while increasing her

charitable contributions is more ethical than an heiress buying an expensive coat instead of

donating to charity, who in turn is more ethical than a serial killer because of the increasing net

harm in each scenario.

The integrity objection to utilitarianism is insufficient grounds for rejecting it as an

ethical theory. Utilitarianism makes objective judgments about the morality of an action by

determining which action creates the maximum net happiness. The demandingness of

utilitarianism ensures that many people will continue to fall short of its ideals, but this has no

bearing on its adequacy as an ethical theory. Utilitarianism, as an ethical theory, may be

demanding and may compromise the commitments of an individual without being void.

Bibliography Bernard Williams' 'Critique of Utilitarianism' from J.Smart and B.Williams, Utilitarianism, For

and Against,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973, pp. 93-118. eReserve Carruthers, Peter. "Utilitarianism and Contractualism." The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in

Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. N. pag. University of Maryland. Web. 5 Oct. 2013.

Peter Singer� 10/14/13 4:11 AMComment [2]: This  claim  seems  easier  to  defend  than  the  one  in  the  previous  paragraph.  

Page 4: Good Essay - Coursera

Driver, Julia, "The History of Utilitarianism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Hauptli, Bruce. "Bernard Williams on Utilitarianism." Fiu.edu. Florida International University,

28 Sept. 2013. Web. 04 Oct. 2013. Mill, John Stuart. "What Utilitarianism Is." Utilitarianism. N.p.: Hayes Barton, 1939. 18. Google

Books. Web. 7 Oct. 2013. Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 6th ed., edited by Stuart Rachels, McGraw-

Hill, 2011, chs. 8-10.

Railton, Peter. "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality." Philosophy and Public Affairs 13.2 (1984): 134-71. JSTOR. ITHAKA. Web. 5 Oct. 2013.

Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. “Consequentialism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward

N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

Comment

This is a well-written paper with a clear focus and structure, and you make some good points.

As I indicate in my marginal comments, you also make one claim that really needs further

explanation and defense, but the argument of the rest of the paper is sound.