Does the integrity objection give us good reason to abandon consequentialism PDF

Preview

Summary

Ethics, consequentialism....

Description

Does the integrity objection give us good reason to abandon consequentialism?

Bernard Williams’ essay A Critique of Utilitarianism is widely regarded as the definitive refute of utilitarianism. Williams build his argument against consequentialist ethical theories, specifically that of utilitarianism. According to Williams all consequentialist theories are indifferent to the integrity of agents and on these grounds we should reject such theories. This essay will look at Williams’ integrity objection and potential utilitarian responses to such objections. Firstly I will introduce the utilitarian model, and from this I will explore William’s objections. Finally I will explore some utilitarian responses and aim to establish if his integrity objection gives us reason to disregard consequentialism altogether or if consequentialist theories can withstand such criticism and exist as viable moral theories.

Consequentialist theories are based on two principles; Whether an act is right or wrong depends solely on the consequences of that act; and the more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act is. Thus when faced with a moral dilemma one should choose the action that maximises good consequences. Utilitarianism is a moral theory traditionally associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. It is a consequentialist theory which states that we should maximise human welfare or well-being. In his essay An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Bentham illustrates his view on the notion of utility by stating at the very beginning that:

“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.”

Whilst Williams does not provide us with a concrete definition of the integrity objection it can generally be regarded as the abandonment and detachment of any consideration for pre-existing moral obligations and agent may have. This concept

1

of integrity is key to Williams’ rejection of utilitarianism and consequentialist moral theories as agents are alienated from their projects and commitments.

Williams’ angle of attack emphasises the importance of the integrity of the agent. Consequentialist theories such as Utilitarianism often require that the agent refrains from considering or giving any special weight to his own personal projects solely in virtue of those projects being his. To act favourably toward one’s own personal feelings amounts to self indulgent squeamishness, and thus Utilitarianism requires us to distance ourselves from feelings and abide by the central principle of utility. Williams advocates that to demand this is contradictory as it is arguable that our own commitments and feelings are what separates us and are integral to who we are.

To help illustrate his argument, Williams uses two case studies to help us visualise the difficulties a consequentialist theory like Utilitarianism impose upon us.

In the first scenario we are introduced to George, a young scientist married with children. George’s poor health means that it is difficult for him to get a job and in turn his wife is left to work in order to support the whole family, creating great strain. George is offered a well paid job in a laboratory researching into chemical and biological warfare. George is strongly opposed to this warfare and does not think he is able to accept the job. However, he is informed that if he does not take the job it will be given to a contemporary of George with a zealous approach. George knows that his children are suffering as a result of his not working.

In the second case we meet Jim, expeditioning in South America who accidently arrives in a small town square. He stumbles upon twenty Indians who are about to be executed by a group of soldiers. The captain, Pedro, decides that Jim should be treated as an honoured guest from another country and in turn offers him the guest's privilege of shooting one of the Indians himself. If Jim is to accept, to mark the occasion the other nineteen Indians will be release. If Jim is to decline the captain’s offer then all twenty will be shot as before. Jim realises there is no scope

2

for him to attempt any rescue of the Indians or to hold the Pedro hostage. Any attempt at rescue would result with the Indians and Jim being killed. The Indians and their families and friends understand the situation and are begging Jim to accept the offer.

The main structure of both examples is clear. The agent is faced with a choice, either to perform act A or not to perform act A. The agent may want to refuse to perform act A because a consequence of performing it includes the introduction of some amount of evil or badness into the world. Additionally, the agent may feel that the performance of A is wrong in principle. If he does refuse to perform A, however, then the consequences that result from her refusal will be even worse than if the agent had performed A. Utilitarianism requires agents to secure the “lesser of evils” in all circumstances of this sort, disregarding how the agent’s principles may conflict with the performance of and participation in the task.

Utilitarianism would tell us to take the job and shoot the Indian. In taking the job or shooting one innocent person George and Jim would act in a way each would regard as undermining a profound moral commitment which constitutes their very identities. This is where we begin to see the sacrifice of the self to promote utility. Utilitarianism assigns a value to George's principled opposition to weapons research and to Jim's abhorrence at killing. However, George's guilt and sense of weakness if he accepts and Jim's remorse and sense that he can no longer live with himself if he shoots are not assigned any special status. They are to be set against the other consequences of the act and the right thing to do is determined by the overall balance of utility. The objection is that the decisions facing George and Jim are not ones about potential sources of utility, but about their moral identity and integrity. George and Jim are faced by a challenge to who they are, not simply what they should do. The utilitarian approach alienates an individual from their own commitments and moral identity. For such commitments are not merely sources of satisfaction or happiness, but integral to the sense of one's identity.

3

To some extent, Utilitarianism presents itself as somewhat paradoxical as its predominant advocation is stimulating happiness, yet it does this by essentially compromising happiness. It is important to note ‘The Paradox of Hedonism’ when understanding human nature and the pursuit for happiness (Sidgwick, 1874). It forms the idea that pleasure and happiness cannot be attained directly, and inattention towards pleasure is the most effective form of discovery. It reinstates Williams claim and the importance of personal integrity, lifelong projects and commitments; they are essential in obtaining paramount, long-term happiness within an individual. It seems flawed to abandon projects that promote the maximum happiness, when this is essentially the main goal of Utilitarianism.

Lastly, Williams’ frames the idea of ‘negative responsibility’ posed upon an agent acting for utilitarianism. Referring back to the examples, if Jim were to choose the latter option, a utilitarian would hold Jim negatively responsible for killing 20 people. How, and why, should Jim feel accountable for his inaction? There must exist a distinction between what Jim chose to do, and what he chose not to do. Furthermore, Jim is held with the exact same moral responsibilities as Pedro, who actually killed the ten individuals. This confusion of responsibility further ignores personal integrity as it fails to distinguish agents as individuals with separate values and commitments.

The integrity objection seems to concern itself with the question of whether or not utilitarianism and other consequentialist theories are too demanding. By requiring agents to abandon moral self conception it arguably strips the agent of his identity. Williams argues that what one accepts as moral norms is essential to their identity, but others would argue that there are times when one may shed whole sets of beliefs and may arguably still be the same person. It is also questionable to believe that what makes you moral or immoral is adherence to a set of feelings. Williams does not question where one obtains these sorts of moral beliefs, he merely suggests that they are important because they were built up over a lifetime. However, this seems to imply that those who grew up in a pro-Nazi family or as a racist slave owner ought to struggle as hard as they can not to be swayed by the

4

lives and pleas of other human beings for fear of having their integrity tainted. The Nazi and the philanthropist may differ on the content of their moral feelings, but the sensation of these “moral feelings” may be identical. Williams does not suggest how we may be able to discriminate true moral feelings from misguided ones. Societal norms determine many people’s moral self-conceptions, and this in turn will become part of their integrity, as formulated by Williams. Obviously, we would require that the slave owner and the Nazi question their moral feelings about these beliefs and, hopefully, be guided away from them. An appeal for them to remain true to their integrity, lifelong projects, or moral self conceptions would only drive them deeper into their harmful beliefs. That utilitarianism would require them to question this and run contrary to their moral feelings is, perhaps, more a benefit than a blemish. In the end, the utilitarian may claim that many moral feelings are of dubious origin, and it is doubtful that they are the result of any intuitive and truthful grasp of what is moral and what is not. As a result, they are unreliable (or at least questionable) in matters of morality.

As well as providing a unique criticism to Williams’ objection, Ashford (2000) produces a response to the integrity objection and argues that we should not abandon consequentialism. Ashford suggests that the problem with utilitarianism is not integrity, but reality and its constant state of crises. It forces agents to choose constantly between personal happiness and that of others. Economic inequality, threatening global warming and people dying from preventable diseases and malnutrition are problems that should be overcome; and arguably could be overcome with the temporary compromise of individual integrity. She does not suggest integrity is completely irrelevant, only that it does not contend with nationwide emergency. Therefore, a moral theory that promotes this necessary cooperation when in emergency is a good one. Individuals must detach themselves from personal commitments and projects until a solution to these problems is found; stimulating the maximum consequential happiness

Additionally, we should consider that the poetic way in which Williams’ presents his arguments with the support of Jim and the Indians and George the Chemist. They

5

appear convincing and they inflict this idea of negative responsibility. However the basis for William’s rejection of negative responsibility is that the actions performed by other agents are not the responsibility of the primary agent. Williams argues that negative responsibility unfairly makes the agent responsible for the failure of others to act morally and should be rejected on the grounds of this unfairness. However, this claim of unfairness is perhaps rather obviously outweighed by the people whose lives would be saved by a choice to act on their behalf. This unfairness is reduced to irrelevance in this case as a utilitarian would still claim that this concept does not alleviate an agent’s responsibility to act for the greater good and to perform the action which will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Whilst it may just be one objection to consequentialist theories, the integrity objection holds a lot of weight. It seems inhuman and implausible to be able to disregard pre existing commitments and feelings. This combined with the paradoxical nature of theories such as Utilitarianism suggest that yes, the integrity objection does give us good reason to abandon consequentialism altogether.

6

References

Ashford, E., 2000. Utilitarianism, Integrity and Partiality, The Journal of Philosophy 97(8)

Harris, J., 1974. Williams on Negative Responsibility and Integrity, The Philosophical Quarterly Hernandez, J., 2013.

The Integrity Objection, Reloaded. International Journal of Philosophical Studies. Kagan, S., 1989. The Limits of Morality. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Mill, J. S., 1879. Utilitarianism. London: Spottiswoode and Co.

Sidgwick, H., 1981. The Methods of Ethics. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company Singer, P., 1993. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, B., 1972. Morality: An Introduction to Ethics. New York: Harper & Row.

7...