Williams and Slote on Consequentialism Flashcards
What is the demandingness objection
Critique on obligation to maximize net pleasure.
what is the specific criticism of the demandingness objection?
RP3: If the best state of affairs is the one with maximal net pleasure then we are morally obligated to bring about the state of affairs that maximizes net pleasure
RP3 makes morality too demanding because it suggests thtaa moral requirements consider only the consequences of our actions, and not my particular relationship to those consequences
what is the generic criticism of the demandingness objection?
morality is supposed to be demanding. In other words, the idea is that ethical theories are meant to guide us to do what is right, even when it requires sacrifice or hard work. Here’s how this criticism goes:
What are the four respects in which Williams thinks consequentialism is too demanding?
- failing to draw a distinction between what you do and what you allow. It doesn’t matter if a state is caused directly by you, or simly something that you allow to happen.
- failing to distinguish your agency from another’s agency. It doesn’t matter whose choices the foreseeable consequences of your action results from
- failing to distinguish the special relationship you have to the things that matter to you from the things that matter to someone else. It doens’t matter whether an ooutcome is one you care about or someone else does.
- failing to distinguish the things that are the result of defective moral agency from the things that are not (e.g. the case of the oppressed minority—in these cases its prescriptions will also seem absurd)
what’s the case of george?
George can’t get a decent job, so both he and his wife have to work
this is very stressful, and bad for his three young children who have no one to look after them
george is offered a job researching chemical and biological weapons, banned under international law
george has moral reservations about taking the job
but if George doesn’t take the job someone worse, less scrupulous than he, will take it
George’s wife has no problem with chemical and biological weapons
so, should George take the job?
is it OBVIOUS that George should take the job?
what’s the case of jim?
Jim’s botanical expedition takes him to a small South American town under opressive rule
in the town square jim is greeted by a military commander who has, under his watch, 20 local hostages
he tells jim that the hostages, who were protesting the authoritarian regime, will be executed to make an example of them
but he tells jim that, as their honored visitor, the general is willing to let Jim kill one of the locals himself
if he kills the local, and only if he does, the general will let the rest go
there is nothing Jim can do, otherwise to save the lives of the hostages
the hostages and nearby villagers beg jim to accept the offer
should jim kill the hostage?
but is it OBVIOUS that he should?
How is that argument related to his claim that utilitarian morality is too demanding?
William’s uses the cases of Geroge and Jim to illustrate something that utilitarianism gets wrong, and it’s important that the thing it gets wrong is not just want George and jim should do, but that according to utilitarianism it’s OBVIOUS that they should do those things
what is william’s argument that morality is too demanding?
P1: Utilitarianism says that it is obviously true that Geoerge should accept the job and that Jim should kill the hostage
P2: But it’s not obviously true
- A: Morality distinguishes between what you do and what you allow (i.e., killing vs letting die)
- B: Morality distingiusines between your agency from another’s agency (it seems to matter whether Jim kills the hostage or whether the commander kills the hostage)
- C: Morality prioritizes the specialr elationship you have to the things that matter to you (i.e., does it matter that George disapproves of creating biological weapons but his wife approves of it? Does it matter that Jim doesn’t want to kill the hostages? it seems as though it does)
- D. Morality discounts pleasure and desires that are the product of defective agency (i.e., does it matter that George’s wife, but not George, has a defective POV about what to do?)
C: so, utilitarianism is false
How does Williams think that consequentialism attacks an agent’s integrity and why does it matter?
it’s absurd to think that a person should step away from what matters to them to act in a way that the utilitarian (consequentialist) requires
this alienates him from who he is
this is an attack on his integrity
What is satisficing consequentialism?
we are only morally required to produce enough goodness (or well-being)
if we don’t always have to do what is best then maybe my integrity is preserved… there is room to distinguish doing from allowing, prioritizing my agency and projects over other people’s, and good motives from bad pens, as long as the consequences are good enough
Does Slote think it can be used to respond to the demandingness objection? Is he right? (Bodhi’s perspective)
slote does think it can be used to respond to the demandinginess objection, because if all you’re asked to do is good enough, then morality won’t be too demanding
however, in class, Bodhi says that it doesn’t successfully respond to the demandingness objection because in order to respond to the objection it would need to consider something other than the consequences
even though you only have to do “good enough” that doesn’t mean it takes into account things beyond consequences
Williamson says that if satisficiing consequentialism took my agency into account, it would no longer be consequentialism
so, it can’t avoid the demandingness objection
