Agent Alienation in Consequentialism

1437 Words6 Pages
In “Consequentialism and Integrity,” Bernard Williams criticizes consequentialism on the ground that it is inherently unreasonable due to its insistence on negative responsibility, and as a result, denies the agent integrity. Peter Railton’s “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality” is a response to Williams and a defense of consequentialism. In the following essay, I will explain Williams’s attack on consequentialism, and Railton’s argument that consequentialism need not deny the agent integrity. I will then consider an objection to Railton’s argument, and then evaluate a possible Railtonian response.

Williams identifies himself as a non-consequentialist not by offering a conflicting theory, but by pointing out the flaws of consequentialism. The crux of his argument is his rejection of what he calls negative responsibility: “for consequentialism, all casual connections are on the same level, and it makes no difference, so far as that goes, whether the causation of a given state of affairs lies through another agent, or not.”1 Williams posits that this insistence upon states of affairs reduces actors to causal nodes in a ‘state of affairs machine.’ To illustrate this point, he offers an example of Jim, a traveller lost in a South American jungle. Jim comes upon a town in which twenty of the residents are pressed against a wall, about to be executed by firing squad for daring to protest the government. The army captain present, Pedro, is unused to visitors, and being a hospitable man, offers Jim the opportunity to save the lives of nineteen of the villagers. However, to do so, Jim must take a gun and personally kill one of the residents.2

According to the consequentialist, the ethical so...

... middle of paper ...

...ibility to the drought-stricken people, but his obligation to his wife is a greater responsibility, for himself, Linda, and the institution of marriage. In other words, the ‘causal node machine’ is not limited to people; a sophisticated consequentialist would consider Juan and Linda’s marriage as a component in the machine.

In the above paper, I have explored Williams’s criticism of negative responsibility and consequentialism’s attack on integrity. I then moved on to Railton’s solution of sophisticated consequentialism as a reconciliation of consequentialism and integrity; I then proposed an objection to Railton on the grounds that embracing sophisticated consequentialism is a move away from consequentialism. Finally, I considered Railton’s probable response to that objection. The decision is now left to the reader as to the fruitfulness of my endeavor.

More about Agent Alienation in Consequentialism

Open Document