Bernard Williams: a Critique of Utilitarianism

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.