Question 3:
Bernard Williams claims that utilitarianism violates our personal integrity, and thus is unacceptably demanding. Is Williams’ objection fatal to utilitarianism, or can utilitarians handle this problem?

In this essay we’ll discuss basics and basis of utilitarianism. The theory has been developed, defended, criticised, developed further, criticised further and defended furthered for generations of philosophers. Some feel there is merit behind it, other do not. Bernard Williams was one of the others. We’ll discuss his views on utilitarianism and his perceived criticism of the theory as a whole. As any normal theory does, utilitarianism has been developed and expanded on over the years, but I will mainly focus on the sole basis of the theory with respect to David Hume, John Mill, R.M Hare and Immanuel Kant. Each of these philosophers either had a hand in inspiring the initial precursor of utilitarianism or developed a theory based on utilitarianism. Once we’ve delved into these theories and established the basis of what utilitarians believe in, we will establish why Bernard Williams was so against it. Like any theory should go through evolution, it will always have its critics. Be it the initial theory, branches from that theory or the basis of theory as a whole, it will always be criticised by someone. Bernard Williams posed one of Utilitarianisms greatest critics. Firstly we need to establish what utilitarianism is before we explore Bernard Williams’ criticism.

Utilitarianism is, essentially, a theory based on maximizing the outcome for the greater good. Of course it’s not as simple as that, but that basis is the formative for many of theories that have branched off from utilitarianism. Utilitarianism can be backdated to the times of the hedonism theory where happiness is the greatest exponent of our decision making. However, many would argue that David Hume’s theory of subjectivism was the precursor the later theories on actual utilitarianism. Hume’s theory is considered “Classic Utilitarianism”, where the greater good of all is preferential over the good of few.  Although Hume primarily focused on belief and desired based on pleasure or pain, one can assimilate this to the notion of “the greater good of all is preferential over the good of few.” The “greater good” is often determined by the pleasure or pain that people would receive from an action. This is where Hume would be considered Utilitarian. He states that the pleasure or pain is a motivating factor in an action, similar to a utilitarian basing their decision of the pleasure or pain of the outcome. Although, largely, the basis of Hume’s theory is in the singular point of view while utilitarianism is based more on a group outcome, there are similarities. When I refer to “singular point of view” I’m merely stating that it’s more directed at an individual’s decision over a decision with regards to many. The essence of Hume’s theory is passion and desire, while Kant is more focused on reason.

Immanuel Kant’s theory is focused primarily on reason over emotion or passion. Deontology, Kant’s moral theory, deals with the intentions of an act and the rationality behind that act while utilitarianism is more concerned with the consequences of the act. Kant believes that The Categorical Imperative was the defining feature behind out decisions. The Categorical Imperative is an unconditional moral outlook. For example Kant believes that certain actions such as murder, rape and theft were morally wrong regardless of anything. This is an unconditional statement that defines certain actions as “not ever to be done”. Another aspect of the Categorical Imperative is the law of universalisation. “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law of nature” – Kant. The basic idea behind this is that whatever action you commit to, you would be willing to allow everyone to commit to that same very action, thus universalising your action. This view is very contradictory to John Mill’s utilitarian view.



John Mill, arguably the founder of utilitarianism, basis his theory more on the consequences of an action over the intention or “duty” as Kant did. Mill built on the idea of hedonism and on Hume’s theory by combining the two to a degree. Mill believes that every person has the desire to be happy, thus their decision will be based on the maxim of happiness from an act. However, Mill focuses this theory more on the group dynamic. Thus it’s the basis of utilitarianism. Getting the maximum happiness for the maximum amount of people, that is the basis for a decision. You can see where the ties to Hume and Hedonism come in; however, Mill uses it on a grander scale. This is where Bernard Williams gains his view to criticise the theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism disregards some portion of a population effected by the decision made. Although there is a large degree of happiness dealt out by a decision, there is always a minority whom suffer because of said decision. Bernard Williams argues that this causes inner turmoil due to personal integrity.

Bernard Williams, an avid activist against utilitarianism, has always argued that utilitarianism is too demanding due to its removal of emotion from decision making or action committing. Kantianism and utilitarianism take a look of impartiality to the world while Bernard Williams argues that an individual’s personal moral structure, mental state and values bare some impact of the making of a decision. Utilitarianism also always demands that we look at the general happiness of others over ourselves. This is anti-self-preservation, which counteracts human nature. We are designed to preserve ourselves, however, utilitarianism demands that we disregard our own position in a matter and look at the decisions at hand in an impartial view. Bernard Williams’ main gripe with this is the fact that utilitarianism requires one to disregard themselves in a situation and make a decision even if it’s detrimental to their own personal values or self-worth. Any rational being would see fault in that. It’s almost impossible for a person to take the value of others over their own personal value. For example how can someone, knowing full and well, make a decision that would ultimately affect them so poorly, but it would be for the greater good. The best example is the one of a bishop or your mother. A bishop and your mother are trapped in a fire; you have the ability to save 1 of the 2 only. Utilitarians would save the bishop for his perceived worth to the greater good, but a rational being with emotions and values could never let their own mother die in a fire, regardless of the bishops supposed stature and value to society.