TPQs (10/8) Group 4 Posts, Group 1 Responds

[Becko Copenhaver]

[jswe...@lclark.edu]

YO!

[Becko Copenhaver]

Here is where you post your TPQs for this day.

[Becko Copenhaver]

'Yo!" definitely does not count as thought-provoking question...  ;)

[sbea...@lclark.edu]

TPQ for The Absurd, by Thomas Nagel

We are mere mortal beings living within space and time, and we are all destined since birth to die.  The things we do in our everyday lives appear to be absurd from the perspective of eternity.  If so many things we do as humans are so utterly insignificant in relation to this great existence, why do you think people who have taken a step back to observe themselves and their place in this universe continue to spend their time on useless activities, materials, and experiences? And since justifications eventually come to an end, how would you justify the answer to this question? 

[co...@lclark.edu]

Bernard Williams' essay offers a compelling criticisms of utilitarianism on the grounds that the theory is 1) often at odds with common sense morality 2) It is incredibly difficult to apply fully in many situations 3) and, due to its universal acceptance of preferences, it can require an actor to disassociate from their own view points and act in ways they personally find repugnant.

In addition, Williams makes a strong point that the utilitarian "squimishness response" can act only as an appeal to think about things differently, rather than an actual argument.

Yet, is it possible for a hardline utilitarian to appropriate to the very objection Williams makes to the "squimishness response" about his entire essay?

For example, you can imagine Peter Singer saying that Williams' conception of integrity is just another manifestation of squimishness. For, the concept of integrity could be appropriated by utilitarianism in such a way as to claim: by acting not on your own subjective-view point, but instead on what is deemed to be the greater common-good, you are displaying the most impressive type of integrity. Because by forgoing your gut instinct and following the moral theory, you have true integrity.

As a result, if this were true, Williams' point is merely a different manifestation of a appealing to think about things differently, but not making a real argument.

[nse...@lclark.edu]

Williams attempts to refute Utilitarianism by claiming that it does not take into account the fact that having "commitments" (involvement in projects), in addition to making others happy, is something that makes people happy. He also argues that utilitarianism is too demanding in that an agent must not weigh her emotions any more than the feelings of others. In a way, Williams argues that utilitarianism requires people to do the impossible. In other words, that utilitarianism requires us to distance ourselves from our own identity in order to see the objective net good or bad of an action. If Utilitarianism is true, then one cannot simply pursue happiness, one must also have commitments or projects. In George's example, utilitarianism would say he should take the job even though he is opposed to chemical biological warfare. Is Williams argument that utilitarianism forces people to act for the maximum net good at the expense of their individuality and integrity valid?

For example, it could be argued that there exist situations in which Williams would have to agree with a decision supported by utilitarianism. If, for example, you happened to be carrying a big bucket of water and happened to pass by a stranger who had been cooking some bratwurst but somehow caught themselves on fire. Let's say you subscribe to a very foreign set of beliefs (a commitment of sorts) that says you should not help those in need because they likely deserve it. Utilitarianism would require you to go against your commitments and dump the bucket of water on the burning stranger. Is doing so really costing someone their identity and integrity in this instance? I would think it does not.

[vmco...@lclark.edu]

In my opinion, WIlliam's excerpt is either incredibly confusing, or taken out of a much longer paper that makes this section seem out of context. It was very hard to follow his view points, and I struggled to understand his objections as well as his main points. However, the question raised about integrity is quite interesting, and I believe "Singer" would ultimately be correct in the hypothetical situation. William's made it so difficult to spell out exactly what he disagreed with, that utilitarianism simply makes more sense to me than his objections to integrity. I believe that by acting to bring about that greater good does not require one to sacrifice his integrity. Rather, it makes one realize how important other's well-being can be. In the situation of Jim, described by Williams, I do not believe he made a clear enough point of why Jim shouldn't shoot the one, saving the 19.

  Overall, William's essay lacked serious structure, which furthered the simplistic outline of Utilitarianism, making his disagreements too hard to understand to truly believe in.

[larr...@lclark.edu]

Williams argues that "Utilitarianism alienates one from one's own moral feelings." A hardline utilitarian finds moral feelings irrevelant. If they try to accomodate moral feelings, as Willaims pointed out, including the notion of integrity, they threaten to undermine their own viewpoint. A utilitarian could point out the negative psychological effect on the agent acting, but Williams argues that this is irritational, because the notion of taking into account one's feeings about a certain action is based on moral viewpoints utilitarians dont accept

 

But as integrity is following a set of moral principles consistently, someone who consistently followed ultilitarianism would have integrity regardless of their personal feelings.

 

[hwhi...@lclark.edu]

Williams' argument follows the principle that Utilitarianism rests too heavily on the notion of uninterested action. This is the concept of integrity through which he shows the difference of a personal project and an external project. Is it possible that, although the examples' circumstances are rare, it is most common that a personal project, one's integrity, will carry far less weight in moral judgement than the influence of others' projects? For example there are several billion other people in the world besides one's self and therefore there are several billion other projects influencing the consequences of one's own projects. This being the case, should the integrity of the individual agent be worth any more than those others? How does Williams argue that it should?

[Ian Dechow]

          Integrity "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness"  is completely dependent on the what moral principles you choose. Thus if someone does not know there principles they cannot have integrity.  So You first have to pick principles.  In choosing your principles you decide what integrity is to you, (integrity is subjective).  So in the case of the article Jim and George will only loose integrity if they go against their principles.  It appears as though Jim and George have yet to decide on their principles thus integrity is not yet an issue, they don't have any integrity to worry about.  However if they choose to be either a deontologist or a virtue theorist or a consequentialist or something else, then they have the integrity of that theory to uphold. Until then integrity does not play a part.  Integrity is a consequence of moral principles, not a quality of relativism.  Thus I see Williams' paper as somewhat pointless

[mblak...@lclark.edu]

I found while reading that 'fulfillment' may have been the more appropriate word to use than 'happiness,' if only for the reason that happiness is so hard to define when considering the entire world population. I also believed utilitarianism more to be about the minimizing of net suffering as opposed to the maximizing of net happiness so the 'pursuit of happiness' argument seemed somewhat incongruent with my understanding. I agree with Williams' argument that utilitarianism forces people to shed their own integrity for the sake of the greater good. Even in the instance of the man with the bucket, while his moral code may be corrupt, so long as he consistently follows it--could it not be sound? If it is, I would argue that his integrity is compromised, if not his individuality. 

[estanbro]

Williams criticizes utilitarianism for three reasons:
1) It opposes moral common sense in many situations
2) It can be very difficult to apply in many situations because it is excessively demanding
3) It alienates agents from their actions

We have seen others (Darwall, Hooker) offer oppositions and objections to utilitarianism for reasons 1 and 2 as well. Reason 1, that utilitarianism often times goes against common moral sense, is the first deontological objection to utilitarianism. Reason 2, that utilitarianism is difficult to apply because it is very demanding, is basically the demandingness objection.Reason 3, that utilitarianism alienates agents from their actions, is something we have not yet seen much of though. Williams says that utilitarianism severs the relationship between the agent and her action and undermines the notion of moral responsibility, in the context of what Williams calls integrity (the link between and agent and an action).
So I ask, in the example of case #1, is it morally right for the person to kill one to save the other 19? Is it morally wrong? Or maybe, as utilitarianism would say, the person is morally obligated to kill the one in order to maximize the overall happiness (by saving the 19)