Wednesday, January 16, 2013
After reading Nielsen's "A Defense of Utilitarianism" and Williams' "Against Utilitarianism", I started thinking about about the pros and cons of the Utilitarian philosophy. While Utilitarianism seems to offer the greatest amount of good or happiness for the greatest amount of people, it seems to remove the person acting from the equation, and therefore distance that person from his or her moral values and beliefs. In The Case of the Innocent Fat Man, for example, if a person were to blow up the fat man he or she would be acting in the best interest of those trapped in the cave, but he or she would be distancing him or herself from his or her moral standpoint not to kill an innocent human being. While Utilitarianism appears to be the philosophy under which the majority of people are taken into account and every action is deliberated with the consequences and the effect on others in view, it seems as though personal moral integrity is threatened by this worldview. Essentially, what I mean by this is that acting in a way that best serves the interested of the maximum amount of people has the capacity to devalue or even contradict one's own moral compass or code. With that being said, another aspect that I found very compelling and that we touched on briefly in class was a quote from Williams' work in which he wrote that "we are not primarily janitors of any system of values, even our own: very often, we just act, as a possible confused result of the situation in which we are engaged". I think that the point that Williams is trying to convey here is that even though we may adhere to a certain moral standard, in a life or death situation we act on instinct and not in accordance with a certain school of virtue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis of the pros and cons of utilitarianism. From reading the cases in The Moral Life, such as The Innocent Fat Man, which I also reflected upon, utilitarianism, as it is focused on the consequence rather than actions leading up to a consequence could be a good or bad thing. It is good that in a bad situation, utilitarianism seeks to do the most good for the most people, but it is bad in that it still necessitates one to "get one's hands dirty" or soil one's personal conscience. Perhaps I am a little partial to the deontological train of thought in that it does not require one to jeopardize one's values for the individual has the ability to either act or not act in a given situation, in accordance with one's conscience. For example, in the case of The Innocent Fat Man, a deontologist might believe that directly killing a man is a much greater wrong than to not act and allow for himself to die. In this case, he would not be jeopardizing his conscience; the deaths would be a tragedy, of course, but the man's conscience would remain intact. With regard to your commentation on William's quote about acting without rationalizing mankind's values, I think he is calling his audience to always take the upper road---to seek out what is right and just and in accordance with one's well-formed conscience. In this way, we need not act without thinking, but rather, act rationally as possible without jeopardizing our values.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your view on utilitarianism, especially when you talk about how it has the ability to contradict one's own moral compass while trying to accomplish the greatest good. With the fat man, this becomes a predicament, because if I were in that situation (the person in the cave), I would want to live, but I don't think I would be able to kill another human being for that to happen. However, I think its difficult to say what exactly would/could happen without actually being placed into the situation. We say one thing but act in another when faced with adversity because we are selfish people. At the end of the day, I think we would do whatever benefits us or the greater good for the most part. You talk about distancing oneself, and I can't help but wonder: is that what serial killers or murderers do? I mean, everyone has some sort of moral compass, so as a killer, do they mentally separate themselves from their actions so as not to feel the guilt that comes with the actions?
ReplyDeleteI also agree with this view of utilitarianism. However, when placed in this situation with the fat man, I am not quite sure what I would do either. I do believe that detaching oneself from his or her emotions is most always a bad thing; however, must there be instances in which this must be done to accomplish a greater good?
ReplyDeleteThese authors make it seem so obvious when they argue for their own ethical theory by laying out the consequences of each action in these works of fiction. But yea, in real life its not that simple, and violating individual moral integrity to me sounds ridiculous even when put in a life or death situation.
ReplyDeleteI find your interpretation of the Williams quote to be spot on. While none of us would willing go out and murder someone, in a tough situation we would do what we needed to survive. This is especially true depending on the situation. Consider if it was you and your family in the cave. Almost all of us would kill the fat man to save our family. or if it were a group of children. All things considered I agree with your interpretations.
ReplyDeleteIt appears as though utilitarianism allows for individuals to come to decisions that have some type of moral "aim" so to say. The moral aim in the case of the innocent fat man is to save the lives of the other people. However, a person cannot include themselves in a moral action when they are removing themselves from practicing their own morality. Utilitarianism in this sense does not seem to be a form of morality, but more or less a logical or rational approach to handling situations that have immoral actions involved in them such as taking a life.
ReplyDelete