Williams argues that utilitarianism, these are set up such that utilitarianism would say yes to both. He thinks that probably it's the right thing to do for Jim to kill one of the Indians. Williams does a nice job of saying why those kinds of what he calls squeamishness doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. If you're already convinced that utilitarianism is true, and you view your own emotional reaction as some stupid reflex ... then you yourself would realize that this is a trivial influence on the calculus.
David and Tamler take a break from complaining about psychological studies that measure utilitarianism to complain about the moral theory itself. We talk about one of the most famous critiques of utilitarian theories from Bernard Williams. Does utilitarianism annihilate our integrity--our unity--as people? Would trying to maximize well-being fracture our identities, and swallow up our projects, motivations, and moral convictions--the same convictions that make utilitarianism seem appealing in the first place? Is it ultimately self-defeating as a moral theory?
Plus, we talk about the adventures of Tamler's based step-mom Christina Hoff Sommers' at Lewis and Clark law school. Will David stay woke?
Support Very Bad Wizards
Links: