Deck 23: Bernard Williams

Question 1

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Williams claims that it is too broad to say that according to consequentialism, the only kind of thing that has intrinsic value is states of affairs, but too narrow to say that the value of actions is always consequential. Explain his argument for each of these claims. What characterization of consequentialism does he finally settle on?

Answer 1

No Answer

Question 2

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Write an essay critically examining one of the two cases Williams presents (George the Chemist or Jim and the Indians). Explain the case, and explain why Williams thinks utilitarianism fails to provide a compelling account of how each agent ought to decide what to do. Do you find Williams's argument convincing? Defend your answer.

Answer 2

No Answer

Question 3

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Williams claims that utilitarians should not take account of feelings that are irrational from the utilitarian point of view. How does he argue for this view? Do you think his argument is a good one? Why or why not?

Answer 3

No Answer

Question 4

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-What does happiness involve, according to Williams? How does Williams's view of happiness differ from that assumed by simple versions of utilitarianism. What role does his notion of happiness play in his argument?

Question 5

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-How does Williams characterize the difference between consequentialist and nonconsequentialist approaches to ethics? Which approach do you find more plausible and why?

Question 6

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-What is the thesis of negative responsibility? Does Williams regard it as an advantage or a disadvantage of consequentialism? Do you agree with him? Defend your answer.

Question 7

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-What does Williams mean by integrity, and how does he argue for his claim that utilitarianism constitutes an attack on one's integrity? Do you find his argument convincing? Why or why not?

Question 8

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-According to Williams, to claim that the only states of affairs have intrinsic value is:

A) too broad to exclude anything.
B) too narrow for utilitarians to accept.
C) incoherent.
D) a central claim of nonconsequentialist approaches to ethics.

Question 9

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Williams claims that to say that certain activities make a man happy is to say:

A) that they induce certain sensations in him.
B) that he desires to do them.
C) that he enjoys doing them for their own sake.
D) all of the above.

Question 10

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-According to consequentialism, the right action is the one that:

A) brings about the most value out of any logically possible action.
B) brings about the most value out of any action available to the agent.
C) does not violate anyone's rights.
D) does not violate any prima facie duties.

Question 11

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Williams claims that nonconsequentialists are committed to the claim that:

A) there are some actions that are absolutely forbidden no matter what their consequences.
B) the right action might sometimes fail to bring about the best consequences.
C) consequences are irrelevant to evaluating the rightness of an action.
D) all of the above.

Question 12

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-The doctrine of negative responsibility is the idea that:

A) no one is ever responsible for their actions.
B) I am as responsible for what I allow or fail to prevent as for what I myself bring about.
C) our only responsibilities are to refrain from harming others.
D) responsibility for one's actions is to be avoided whenever possible.

Question 13

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-According to Williams, utilitarianism's strong doctrine of negative responsibility follows from:

A) the assignment of ultimate value to states of affairs.
B) applying a principle of impartiality.
C) both a and b.
D) neither a nor b.

Question 14

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-In Williams's case of George the chemist, George is torn between:

A) his commitment to promise-keeping and his loyalty to his friend.
B) his commitment to his country and his self-interest.
C) his desire to save as many lives as possible and his opposition to executing innocents.
D) his desire to support his family and his deep opposition to biological weapons.

Question 15

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-According to Williams, direct consequentialism holds that "right action" is:

A) a satisficing notion.
B) a maximizing notion.
C) a minimizing notion.
D) a maximining notion.

Question 16

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-In the two cases he discusses, Williams claims that utilitarianism:

A) clearly yields the wrong verdicts.
B) gives the right verdicts for the right reasons.
C) provides no verdict at all.
D) might yield the right verdicts, but for the wrong reasons

Question 17

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Some feelings are irrational from the utilitarian point of view. Williams claims that in deciding what to do, utilitarians should give such feelings:

A) equal weight with other feelings.
B) some weight, but less weight than other feelings.
C) no weight at all.
D) extra weight, because they are very hard to get rid of.

Question 18

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-According to Williams, the utilitarian must regard Jim's feelings of moral uncertainty as:

A) justified.
B) based on inaccurate calculation.
C) mere squeamishness.
D) indicating the deep wrongness of his action.

Question 19

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-According to Williams, it is unreasonable to extend the notion of the unavailability of actions to:

A) actions which merely did not occur to the agent.
B) actions which did occur to the agent, but where the agent was misinformed about their consequences.
C) both a and b.
D) neither a nor b.

Question 20

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Williams distinguishes two kinds of remote effect relevant to utilitarianism:

A) psychological effect on the agent and precedent effect.
B) proximal and distal effects.
C) particular effect and general effect.
D) moral effect and nonmoral effect.

Question 21

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Williams argues that, according to consequentialism, "it's me" can:

A) never itself be a morally comprehensible reason.
B) sometimes itself be a morally comprehensible reason.
C) always itself be a morally comprehensible reason.
D) none of the above.

Question 22

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Williams claims that the demands of utilitarianism constitute an attack on the agent's:

A) virtue.
B) sense of fairness.
C) benevolence.
D) integrity.

Question 23

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-According to Williams, consequentialists claim that everything that has value has it by virtue of its consequences.

Question 24

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Williams claims that utilitarians reject the category of the unthinkable.

Question 25

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Williams argues that according to consequentialism, it makes no moral difference whether I do something or merely allow the same thing to happen.

Question 26

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-According to Williams, consequentialists are committed to a strong doctrine of negative responsibility.

Question 27

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Williams claims that it would clearly be wrong for Jim to do what Pedro asks of him.

Question 28

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Williams claims that utilitarianism cannot coherently describe the relations between a man's projects and his actions.

Question 29

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Williams argues that under the right conditions, by the utilitarian's lights, it would be permissible to remove a racial minority from society.

Question 30

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-According to Williams, utilitarians should regard the precedent effect of one's action as morally irrelevant.

Question 31

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Williams argues that consequentialism is indifferent to whether a state of affairs is produced by what I do or consists in what I do.

Question 32

Bernard Williams: A Critique of Utilitarianism
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. (Utilitarianism is simply the version of consequentialism that holds that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value.) Because consequentialism is concerned exclusively with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility: "that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about." Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism with two, now famous, examples.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments-around which one's life is often structured-any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary to them. To require this, Williams argues, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from their own projects and attitudes.
-Williams claims that if utilitarianism is true, our actions should be determined by the undesirable projects of other people as much as by desirable ones.