Utilitarianism
Paper #1
In A Critique of Utilitarianism, Bernard Williams argues that when following a Utilitarian approach for moral dilemmas, Utilitarianism might have us sacrifice or modify our moral integrity. Williams explains this argument with a hypothetical execution situation with protagonist Jim. Jim, who is a botanical expeditionary, accidentally wanders in the central square of a small South American town. There, he finds twenty Indians tied up in a row, with several armed soldiers standing in front of them. The captain in charge of the soldiers, Pedro, is ready to execute the Indians for protesting against the government. However, Jim is a foreigner and is honored by the captain. Because of this special occasion, Pedro gives Jim the option to shoot and kill one Indian. If Jim accepts, the other nineteen Indians can go free, if not, Pedro will shoot all twenty like intended. The Indians beg Jim to accept the offer and shoot one of them. Now, Jim is faced with a difficult decision whether to shoot one Indian or let Pedro shoot all of them. What should Jim do? It is not sure what the right course of action is, but four different theories could help him decide. These theories are: the Divine Command theory, Cultural Relativism, Kantianism, and Utilitarianism. In this paper, I will present these four theories and their suggestions for Jim’s right course of action, the faults in these theories, and how Utilitarianism is morally correct in this case.
Jim can use one of the four theories to determine a morally acceptable solution to his dilemma. According to the Divine Command theory, an action is morally right if, and only if, it is permitted by God’s commands. Therefore, we behave morally and rightly when we do what God wants us to do. As a result, the Divine Command theory suggests that Jim should ultimately do what God wants him to do, because God’s commands are most important. The story of Jim and the Indians poses a challenge to the Divine Command theory for a few
In A Critique of Utilitarianism, Bernard Williams argues that when following a Utilitarian approach for moral dilemmas, Utilitarianism might have us sacrifice or modify our moral integrity. Williams explains this argument with a hypothetical execution situation with protagonist Jim. Jim, who is a botanical expeditionary, accidentally wanders in the central square of a small South American town. There, he finds twenty Indians tied up in a row, with several armed soldiers standing in front of them. The captain in charge of the soldiers, Pedro, is ready to execute the Indians for protesting against the government. However, Jim is a foreigner and is honored by the captain. Because of this special occasion, Pedro gives Jim the option to shoot and kill one Indian. If Jim accepts, the other nineteen Indians can go free, if not, Pedro will shoot all twenty like intended. The Indians beg Jim to accept the offer and shoot one of them. Now, Jim is faced with a difficult decision whether to shoot one Indian or let Pedro shoot all of them. What should Jim do? It is not sure what the right course of action is, but four different theories could help him decide. These theories are: the Divine Command theory, Cultural Relativism, Kantianism, and Utilitarianism. In this paper, I will present these four theories and their suggestions for Jim’s right course of action, the faults in these theories, and how Utilitarianism is morally correct in this case.
Jim can use one of the four theories to determine a morally acceptable solution to his dilemma. According to the Divine Command theory, an action is morally right if, and only if, it is permitted by God’s commands. Therefore, we behave morally and rightly when we do what God wants us to do. As a result, the Divine Command theory suggests that Jim should ultimately do what God wants him to do, because God’s commands are most important. The story of Jim and the Indians poses a challenge to the Divine Command theory for a few