Tori Talamonti
PHL610Q

Essay #1: Instinctive Morality and the Plausibility of Integrity

As a vehicle for hashing out the importance of integrity within the realm of utilitarianism, Bernard Williams sets forth the dilemma of Jim. The purpose of this is to bring into account the effects of an action upon an individual, and not just outwardly reactions of things such as life and death. Williams now pulls into the picture the idea of negative consequences on one’s own feelings and on one’s tolerance of one’s self and one’s actions. Where the devoted utilitarian may regard such things as flighty and of no importance, in reality, the effects of an action upon one’s own psyche are often large factors as far as actually carrying out said action is concerned. In most cases, utilitarian ideals are much easier to discuss in theory than they are to put into practice for this reason.

Utilitarianism calls for one to do good whenever possible, to maximize happiness. And then the debate often follows that this requires one to know all possible consequences of his or her actions, but there is no way that this can be a feasible way of life. How on earth can one possibly know what could happen in every circumstance? To really put this concept into practice, every moment of life would have to be frozen in time, every angle mulled over, the history of every person recounted for a decision to be made with any absolute certainty. This is, of course, impractical and impossible. Sitting far removed from a situation, it gets easier to look into things such as the moral characters of every person involved, what every person might have been thinking, effects that an action could have on individuals not even directly involved. But when a difficult decision is to be made, there is usually not time for such things. Take for example the incident of the out-of-control trolley. Five individuals obey the law and cross where they are designated to do so, but ten follow their own agenda and cross in a location that has been specifically marked against crossing. Speaking of such an incident in hypothetical terms allows one to take into account the moral character of those crossing. Some were obeying the law, and others were not. Is it better to kill the unlawful? Or perhaps one of the individuals you were to destroy was destined to find a cure for cancer. Even outside the boundaries of time, questions like these require much discussion, backtracking, and rehashing. But when the decision is actually required to be made, how practical are such measurements and precautions? Even the concept of rules and tendencies may be thrown to the wind. In the heat of the moment, an individual is, instinctively, far more likely to weigh a decision based entirely on a readily available statistic such as quantity. It is better to kill five people than to kill ten. And so, it seems, that philosophy and utilitarianism, in particular, would be interested to treat events in a manner that makes them more plausible within the conventions of real life.

Following from this, how much research can Jim possibly do with regards to his decision? He cannot know the large scale effects of his decision, such as how this event might affect future generations. He cannot foresee the effects of a saved life upon the rest of history. At first glance, considering nothing but the situation presented on the page, the natural conclusion would be that of course Jim should kill the one for the sake of the rest. The first objection to this would be that killing is wrong. But as harsh as it may seem, the fate of the one would be the same regardless of who shot him. And since he, whoever he is, shall die either way, is it not better to save nineteen lives than to let them be destroyed as well? It might then follow that one should consider Jim’s own feelings. How would he feel about having to kill another human being? Does his own sense of integrity have an effect on the perceived rightness of an action? Surely maximizing happiness would include Jim’s personal happiness -- how he will feel about himself afterwards. But if the actions done against one person are equal to those same actions being done on another person, if the subject of the action does not matter, then does it not follow that Jim’s happiness matters as much as any other’s? While this would most likely be taken as a reason for Jim to walk off without firing a shot, it should instead add his contentment with his own integrity as just another number in the equation. Each person involved has something on the line. For the twenty, they have their lives, and Jim has his sense of self. Should Jim walk away, he may save his integrity, but twenty people will lose their lives. If Jim fires a shot, he may feel a sense of loss, of remorse, but the happiness of only two people will decline -- his and that of the person he has killed. Is the integrity of one man really enough to outweigh the life of one man, let alone the lives of nineteen?

Besides the lives of the Indians, the chief consideration in this dilemma is Jim’s own sense of morality, but to what extent does this hold him to a particular decision? As has been often discussed, morality is largely dependent on society as a whole. In order to be considered moral, an idea must be upheld by the majority of a society. The majority of a society would agree that killing is wrong, which is how Jim is assumed to feel, and therefore his action of killing an Indian would be morally wrong. And yet, when presented with the same situation, the majority of people would jump to the conclusion that it is, of course, better to kill the one and let the other nineteen live. For whatever reason, morality in this case has been bent, has been shifted, though it is not clear why. But as far as Jim is concerned, should it matter? If morality is largely dependent upon the ideas of a society, and the majority of a society would have done the same thing, then to whom must Jim answer? It seems that, in this case, society would advocate the killing of the one instead of the negative responsibility of allowing the other twenty to die. And so, in some skewed sense, Jim would be doing the moral thing, thus easing his opinion of his own character. Jim would be following a naturally acceptable course that is congruent with both the ideals of utilitarianism and the morality of society.