Bernard Williams Negative Responsibility Essay

In this philosophical study, an argument in support of “negative responsibility” will define the important ethical implications of a critique of Utilitarian ideology in the writings of Bernard Williams. Williams argues that the important issue of moral responsibility in Utilitarian philosophy is missing in the idea that personal responsibility for an act can actually be a positive influence for the grater good. In fact, the “negative responsibility” of the individual. The utilitarian tends to believe that a person is not accountable for an act, as long as it preserves the greater good of society. However, Williams denies this argument due to the negative ramifications of an act that must always contain some element of responsibility for the

Traditionally, the utilitarian philosophy defines the ethical importance of acting for the greater good and welfare of society, which will bring about the most good for all people. In this way, the utilitarian will usually take a position on a certain act through the premise of “act” utilitarianism and “rule” utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism makes certain exceptions about the “right” moral decision based on individual acts; as, in contrast, rule utilitarianism is based on adhering to the “right” act no matter what the circumstances. In both cases, utilitarianism would argue that a “right” ethical decision will have the best overall consequences, no matter what type of sacrifice is made. For instance, Jake tells John (1) that he will kill one man to save the lives of one hundred people, or that (2), he will kill all of the people. If Jake kills the one man, then John will have no ethical or moral obligation to feel remorse for the act, since he has saved the lives of ninety-nine people. However, Williams would countermand this argument through the concept of “negative responsibility” for murdering the