Who Is John Williams Utilitarianism
Williams’s is a popular opponent to John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarian rulebook when it comes to an agent's individuality. Williams believes that Utilitarianism is flawed because it requires agents to compromise their own individual self-concept both emotionally and morally. He thinks this because Utilitarianism says that in order for every series of events to be morally sound by producing the most happiness one may have to disregard their own projects and perform the action that will cause this outcome. William’s understands this to a certain extent. He realizes that in some cases agent’s will be asked to do things that compromise some of their own beliefs, however, Williams doesn’t believe that agents should ever have to compromise their projects that exist on a deeper level. These projects that agents view as being a part of their
…show more content…
Williams views that by undermining an agent’s individual commitments in order to foster another agent’s projects because they create the output that Utilitarianism requires this is “in the most literal sense, an attack on his integrity” (117). Williams also wants to make clear the difference between an agent's projects causing harm and somebody else's projects causing harm. This is specifically relevant in the Jim and the Indians case in which Jim is asked to kill on indian and have the other nineteen set free. However, if he does not, all twenty indians will be killed. Williams uses this example to further his criticism of Utilitarianism by saying that it would require Jim to compromise his own commitments in order to save nineteen people. Jim would have to set aside his own self-concept of morality in order to perform the action that would result in the most happiness. Williams suggests that instead of immediately discounting one’s emotions regarding certain actions, Utilitarians should try to understand
Williams views that by undermining an agent’s individual commitments in order to foster another agent’s projects because they create the output that Utilitarianism requires this is “in the most literal sense, an attack on his integrity” (117). Williams also wants to make clear the difference between an agent's projects causing harm and somebody else's projects causing harm. This is specifically relevant in the Jim and the Indians case in which Jim is asked to kill on indian and have the other nineteen set free. However, if he does not, all twenty indians will be killed. Williams uses this example to further his criticism of Utilitarianism by saying that it would require Jim to compromise his own commitments in order to save nineteen people. Jim would have to set aside his own self-concept of morality in order to perform the action that would result in the most happiness. Williams suggests that instead of immediately discounting one’s emotions regarding certain actions, Utilitarians should try to understand