On page 248 in the Introduction portion of Bernard William's Against Utilitarianism, Williams brings up the notion that "utilitarianism is a bad moral theory because it violates moral integrity," as it often forces one to "reject [one's] conscience and [one's] personal ideals in favor of lesser evils," which he calls negative responsibility. In The Case of the Innocent Fat Man, the second utilitarianism case explored by Nielsen, Nielsen seems to suggest that the killing of one man is morally acceptable given that in doing so, the lives of the other people who are stuck in the cave will be spared. For he says, "our conservative would say...he ought not to blast the fat man out, for it is always wrong to kill the innocent. Must or should a moral man come to that conclusion? I shall argue that he should not." Yet, is this really the case? Is it ever morally acceptable to sacrifice a life, even for the lives of others? If all people are equal and of the same value, then does one's inherent worth depend on the situation one is in? After all, it was not the fat man's fault that he got stuck. In another situation, a skinny person could have fallen victim to another tragedy. And even if it seems reasonable to spare the lives of many instead of the lives of one or two people, wouldn't it still be erronous to say that it was a moral decision to spare the many and kill the few? I would concur with Williams to say that utilitarianism, at least when concerning matters of life and death, makes one choose between a greater and a lesser evil (in The Case of the Innocent Fat Man the death of the fat man is the lesser evil and the death of the others is the greater evil).
I like seeing things in the "gray" area if possible. Does the Fat man in this story have to be stuck? Can he become unstuck by the breaking of his leg or the pushing and shoving him out of the mouth of the cave? Can there be such ways that not only save the fat man but also the others so that the greatest good is accomplished for all the people?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the negative responsibilities you mentioned can be contrasted with deontological principles to supplement the efforts of bentham and mill to make a calculus for moral/ethical behaviour. perhaps i'll talk more about that in class.
ReplyDeleteof course, the question of description vs. presecription matters here too, and parsing out which of these is more useful determines the argumentation that is most useful when considering how to concisely summarize what is moral.
I want to move on, though, and play devil's advocate here... Why is it that the fat man is not responsible for his weight? Did he not make the choices to consume a fattening diet and not excercise the excess calories away? Similarly, might it be the case that the other cavers have a responsibility for choosing to follow this man as their leader? It leads me to two questions:
First, Does ignorance mean that you are ultimately irresonsible for an action? These people did not know the future, but does that absolve them of responsibility for their choices that (presumably) lead to the situation?
Second, What is this quandary showing us about where the locus of ethical behaviours are?
My first question also leads me to the speculation that responsibility in this situation is pitted against the irrational nature of the world.
look carefully, then, at the situation.
1. The fat man got in to the cave.
Rationally speaking,
2. He could have only lost weight in the exploration as he burned calories, and so he would have been marginally smaller at exit.
3. The cave is not generally considered to be alive, and so the entrance would not have shrunk during the exploration.
therefore:
4. Exit from the cave should be possible.
the problem of the situation is that the man IS stuck, and that might be where the question of responsibility matters. The world in this context is irrational, and there was no logical precedent to suggest that the situation would result the way it did.
So, lets look at the question about responsibility a little differently. would they bear more responsibility for their actions if the fat man had become stuck as they entered the cave? I think it would change the situation considerably.
Which leads me to the next question. what can this help us see as we look at ethics and morality?
I think that in the "Case of the Innocent Fat Man" if one is acting on the principles of Utilitarianism, then one must put one's own moral integrity aside and act for the good of the greatest number of people. It appears that Utilitarianism forces one to take oneself out of the equation and act in ways that may even contradict what one believes to be the right course of action. In this way, it seems to me that acting in a Utilitarian manner could even cause one to be unhappy because it could mean going against one's own personal beliefs, such as killing an innocent person, in order to save the lives of a greater number of people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anna and the notion of removing oneself from the equation. if we are acting in a way such that we are doing what is necessary to achieve the "greatest" good, there is no logical way that the consideration of oneself and the possible outcomes can be accounted for--because one is not the many. I believe that utilitarianism is sometimes the only answer to certain situations because as individuals we all have our own moral codes or beliefs that we operate by, and due to this factor of personal removal that utilitarianism possesses, it is sometimes the best option in making moral decisions because an individual's morality is is removed.
ReplyDeleteI prefer the solution proffered by a well known philosopher: "I don't do trolley or fat man moral hypothetical problems"
ReplyDelete