Bernard Williams
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 20:48, 4 November 2014 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 15:05, 18 June 2017 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| Sir '''Bernard Arthur Owen Williams''' [[British Academy|FBA]] ([[September 21]], [[1929]] – [[June 10]], [[2003]]) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[moral philosopher]]. He is known for [[Jim and the Indians]] (from ''[[Utilitarianism: For and Against]]'' with [[J.J.C. Smart]] (1973)). | Sir '''Bernard Arthur Owen Williams''' [[British Academy|FBA]] ([[September 21]], [[1929]] – [[June 10]], [[2003]]) was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[moral philosopher]]. He is known for [[Jim and the Indians]] (from ''[[Utilitarianism: For and Against]]'' with [[J.J.C. Smart]] (1973)). | ||
| + | ===Critique of utilitarianism=== | ||
| + | {{further|Act utilitarianism|Rule utilitarianism|Preference utilitarianism}} | ||
| + | Williams set out the case against [[utilitarianism]] –a [[Consequentialism|consequentialist]] position the simplest version of which is that actions are right only insofar as they promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number – in ''Utilitarianism: For and Against'' (1973) with [[J. J. C. Smart]]. One of the book's [[thought experiment]]s involves Jim, a botanist doing research in a South American country led by a brutal dictator. Jim finds himself in a small town facing 20 captured Indian rebels. The captain who has arrested them says that if Jim will kill one, the others will be released in honour of Jim's status as a guest, but if he does not, they will all be killed. Simple [[act utilitarianism]] would favour Jim killing one of the men.<ref>J. J. C. Smart, Bernard Williams, ''Utilitarianism: For and Against'', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973, 98–99.</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Williams argued that there is a crucial distinction between a person being killed by Jim, and being killed by the captain because of an act or omission of Jim's. The captain, if he chooses to kill, is not simply the medium of an effect ''Jim'' is having on the world. He is the moral actor, the person with the intentions and projects. The utilitarian loses that distinction, turning us into empty vessels by means of which consequences occur. Williams argued that moral decisions must preserve our psychological identity and integrity.<ref>Smart and Williams 1973, 109ff.</ref><ref>Daniel Markovits, "The architecture of integrity," in Daniel Callcut (ed.), ''Reading Bernard Williams'', Abingdon: Routledge, 2009.</ref> We should reject any system that reduces moral decisions to a few algorithms.<ref>Williams, ''Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy'', 117.</ref> | ||
| == See == | == See == | ||
Revision as of 15:05, 18 June 2017
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
Sir Bernard Arthur Owen Williams FBA (September 21, 1929 – June 10, 2003) was a British moral philosopher. He is known for Jim and the Indians (from Utilitarianism: For and Against with J.J.C. Smart (1973)).
Critique of utilitarianism
Template:Further Williams set out the case against utilitarianism –a consequentialist position the simplest version of which is that actions are right only insofar as they promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number – in Utilitarianism: For and Against (1973) with J. J. C. Smart. One of the book's thought experiments involves Jim, a botanist doing research in a South American country led by a brutal dictator. Jim finds himself in a small town facing 20 captured Indian rebels. The captain who has arrested them says that if Jim will kill one, the others will be released in honour of Jim's status as a guest, but if he does not, they will all be killed. Simple act utilitarianism would favour Jim killing one of the men.<ref>J. J. C. Smart, Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973, 98–99.</ref>
Williams argued that there is a crucial distinction between a person being killed by Jim, and being killed by the captain because of an act or omission of Jim's. The captain, if he chooses to kill, is not simply the medium of an effect Jim is having on the world. He is the moral actor, the person with the intentions and projects. The utilitarian loses that distinction, turning us into empty vessels by means of which consequences occur. Williams argued that moral decisions must preserve our psychological identity and integrity.<ref>Smart and Williams 1973, 109ff.</ref><ref>Daniel Markovits, "The architecture of integrity," in Daniel Callcut (ed.), Reading Bernard Williams, Abingdon: Routledge, 2009.</ref> We should reject any system that reduces moral decisions to a few algorithms.<ref>Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, 117.</ref>
See
- Truth and Truthfulness (2002).
