STATE ONE OBJECTION TO UTILITARIANISM.

IS IT A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR REJECTING UTILITARIANISM?

The Integrity Objection: Insufficient Grounds for Rejecting Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is the normative ethical theory that determines that an action is ethically correct if
it causes the greatest net happiness. After assessing the happiness and pain that an action will
cause to all individuals, a utilitarian determines that the action that creates the greatest net
happiness is ethically correct. Ethical theories make objective judgments about the morality of an
action. The integrity objection argues that utilitarianism is an insufficient ethical theory, because
it alienates people from their personal goals and obligates them to perform acts that should be
supererogatory. However, the integrity objection alone is insufficient grounds for rejecting
utilitarianism as an ethical theory, because the demands of utilitarianism do not undermine its
ability to make judgments about moral actions.
Using the integrity objection, Bernard Williams formulates that one should reject
utilitarianism because it requires individuals to reject their personal goals or commitments to
maximize others welfare. Williams defines commitments as deep-set goals integral to ones
identity. He provides the following example to illustrate the integrity objection: Jim, a man
committed to never murdering a human, visits a town where a captain, Pedro, is about to kill
twenty Indians. Pedro decides that if Jim kills one of the Indians, he will spare the others. If Jim
does nothing, Pedro will kill all twenty Indians. Williams concludes that utilitarianism is void
because it alienates Jim from his commitment against murder.
1

Williams argument against utilitarianism using the integrity objection fails for the
following reasons:

1
Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism, For and Against, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 98-103 .
1) A sufficient ethical theory requires objective reasoning to determine the morality of an
action.
2) An ethical theory may be demanding and may compromise the commitments of an
individual without being void.
Utilitarianism is an adequate ethical theory because it objectively determines a morally correct
action, even though it may compromise personal commitments in favor of this action. To
illustrate this rebuttal, consider the case of Werner, a Nazi general with the commitment of
killing Jews to create an Aryan race. Utilitarianism morally obligates Werner to abandon his
commitment: the harm Werners commitment would cause outweighs his discomfort in
abandoning the commitment. The fact that utilitarianism requires both Werner and Jim to
abandon commitments integral to their identity is not sufficient grounds to reject it as an
inadequate ethical theory. As a legitimate ethical theory, utilitarianism relies on practical reason
to guide Jim and Werners actions without regards to the ease of their decision processes.
Consider the case of a woman with an extreme talent for fundraising for charity who is
committed to being a good mother for her children. Using the integrity objection, Williams might
argue that utilitarianism unreasonably demands the woman to spend all her time fundraising for
charity at the expense of her commitment to being a good mother, and is therefore void. This
conclusion is inaccurate for two reasons. Firstly, humans in fact can make certain self-interested
decisions within the realm of utilitarianism,
2
so the mother is not necessarily obligated to spend
all her time fundraising. Utilitarianism weighs both the happiness that she promotes through
charitable fundraising and the detriment of her neglect to her children and the society they join.
To be ethically correct, the mother would balance the weight she gives to fundraising and her
children to optimize happiness. There is a gray area in defining the weight that one should give

2
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, (Hayes Barton Press: 1939), 18.
Peter Singer 10/14/13 4:09 AM
Comment [1]: This is a contioveisial
claim. Citing Nill in suppoit isn't enough. I
know that space is limiteu, but it woulu be
goou to say moie about how this is
compatible with the utilitaiian piinciple.
to ones own commitments versus helping others, but its existence does not undermine
utilitarianism.
Secondly, utilitarianisms standards are high, but the fact that people may not readily
adopt or achieve these standards does not delegitimize them or utilitarianism as an ethical theory.
Granted, even after some fundraising, which Williams might consider supererogatory, the
mothers actions are not morally perfect unless they optimize net happiness. However, the
mother is not just either moral or immoral; different degrees of morality exist in utilitarianism. A
utilitarian acknowledges that an heiress who buys a moderately-priced coat while increasing her
charitable contributions is more ethical than an heiress buying an expensive coat instead of
donating to charity, who in turn is more ethical than a serial killer because of the increasing net
harm in each scenario.
The integrity objection to utilitarianism is insufficient grounds for rejecting it as an
ethical theory. Utilitarianism makes objective judgments about the morality of an action by
determining which action creates the maximum net happiness. The demandingness of
utilitarianism ensures that many people will continue to fall short of its ideals, but this has no
bearing on its adequacy as an ethical theory. Utilitarianism, as an ethical theory, may be
demanding and may compromise the commitments of an individual without being void.


Bibliography

Bernard Williams' 'Critique of Utilitarianism' from J.Smart and B.Williams, Utilitarianism, For
and Against,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973, pp. 93-118. eReserve

Carruthers, Peter. "Utilitarianism and Contractualism." The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in
Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. N. pag. University of Maryland. Web. 5 Oct.
2013.
Peter Singer 10/14/13 4:11 AM
Comment [2]: This claim seems easiei to
uefenu than the one in the pievious
paiagiaph.
Driver, Julia, "The History of Utilitarianism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Summer 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Hauptli, Bruce. "Bernard Williams on Utilitarianism." Fiu.edu. Florida International University,
28 Sept. 2013. Web. 04 Oct. 2013.

Mill, John Stuart. "What Utilitarianism Is." Utilitarianism. N.p.: Hayes Barton, 1939. 18. Google
Books. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.

Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 6th ed., edited by Stuart Rachels, McGraw-
Hill, 2011, chs. 8-10.

Railton, Peter. "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality." Philosophy and
Public Affairs 13.2 (1984): 134-71. JSTOR. ITHAKA. Web. 5 Oct. 2013.

Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. Consequentialism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward
N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/








Comment
This is a well-written paper with a clear focus and structure, and you make some good points.
As I indicate in my marginal comments, you also make one claim that really needs further
explanation and defense, but the argument of the rest of the paper is sound.