Download Anscombe and Williams Reading Study Guide Phil 240 Introduction

Anscombe and Williams Reading Study Guide
Phil 240 Introduction to Ethical Theory
G. E. M. Anscombe, “Modern Moral Philosophy”
Anscombe argues that much of the moral philosophy of the past several hundred years has rested on
serious confusions, so much so that it is not currently profitable to do moral philosophy. She begins by
providing brief critiques of a number of important moral philosophers, including Butler, Hume, Kant,
Bentham, and Mill. Although she raises different objections for each of these views, she claims that a
common problem for all modern moral theories is that they invoke the concept of moral obligation.
Anscombe points out that ancient philosophers such as Aristotle had no such concept, and argues that the
concept is one we inherited from the divine law conception of ethics prevalent in Christianity. Anscombe
claims that without this foundation (which is no longer endorsed by most moral philosophers), talk of
moral obligations retains some psychological effect, but no longer picks out a coherent concept. Instead
of basing our ethical theories on the notion of moral obligation, she recommends a return to the ancient
approach of thinking about the virtues. Even in the absence of divine law, we can still sensibly describe
actions as untruthful or unjust. This approach, however, must wait until we have an adequate philosophy
of psychology, which tells us what makes certain traits virtues, which itself will likely require analyzing
related concepts such as action, intention, and pleasure.
Anscombe raises one other criticism of the British moral philosophy of her time. She claims that every
British moral philosopher since Sidgwick has denied that there are certain actions that can never be right,
regardless of their consequences. Against this, Anscombe claims that it is always forbidden to kill an
innocent person, even if doing so would bring about good consequences (e.g., by saving several others).
She argues that this gives us another good reason to adopt a virtue-based account of ethics: Although
someone might claim that it is sometimes morally right to kill an innocent person, no one would deny that
it is unjust to do so.
Study Questions
1. How does Anscombe respond to Hume’s suggestion that it is impossible to infer an “ought” from an
“is”? Do you find her response to this problem satisfactory? Why or why not?
2. Anscombe claims that the expression morally ought “no longer signifies a real concept at all.” What
reason does she give for thinking this? Do you think she is right? Defend your answer.
3. According to Anscombe, we will not be able to do moral philosophy profitably “until we have an
adequate philosophy of psychology.” What would this involve? Do you agree that having an adequate
philosophy of psychology is necessary to do moral philosophy well? Why or why not?
4. Anscombe claims that “the differences between the well-known English writers on moral philosophy
from Sidgwick to the present day are of little importance.” What objection does she raise to all such
theories? Do you find her objection compelling?
5. Anscombe recommends that we stop using the notion of moral obligation. What does she recommend
that we replace this concept with? What do you think would be the costs and benefits of making this
revision to our moral thought?
Bernard Williams, “A Critique of Utilitarianism”
Williams characterizes consequentialism as the view that the right action is the one that brings about the
greatest amount of intrinsic value out of the actions available to the agent. Because consequentialism is
concerned simply with maximizing value, Williams claims, the theory is indifferent as to how the
consequences of an action are brought about, whether directly by the agent or indirectly through other
channels. Consequentialism therefore involves what Williams calls a notion of negative responsibility:
"that if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as much responsible for things that I allow
or fail to prevent as I am for things that I myself, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about."
Williams objects to this aspect of consequentialism and presents two examples to bring out why he thinks
it is problematic.
In Williams's first case, a poor chemist must decide whether to accept a job researching chemical
weapons (to which he objects), or refuse it, in which case it will be taken by a zealous proponent of
chemical weapons. In the second, a traveler must choose whether to accept an invitation to execute an
innocent person, or refuse it, in which case 20 innocent people will be executed. In each case, deep
commitments held by the agent (against chemical weapons, or killing innocents) come into play. Williams
objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that it requires an agent to act against such commitments—around
which one's life is often structured—any time an impersonal utilitarian calculation yields verdicts contrary
to them. To require this, Williams claims, is to neglect the extent to which agents' decisions flow from
their own projects and attitudes.
Study Questions
1. Williams claims that it is too broad to say that according to consequentialism, the only kind of thing
that has intrinsic value is states of affairs, but too narrow to say that the value of actions is always
consequential. Explain his argument for each of these claims. What characterization of
consequentialism does he finally settle on?
2. Critically reflect on the two cases Williams presents (George the Chemist or Jim and the Indians).
Explain the case, and explain why Williams thinks utilitarianism fails to provide a compelling
account of what each agent ought to do. Do you find Williams’s argument convincing?
3. Williams claims that utilitarians should not take account of feelings that are irrational from the
utilitarian point of view. How does he argue for this view? Do you think his argument is a good one?
Why or why not?
4. What does happiness involve, according to Williams? How does Williams’s view of happiness differ
from that assumed by simple versions of utilitarianism. What role does his notion of happiness play in
Williams’s argument?
5. What is the thesis of negative responsibility? Does Williams regard it as an advantage or a
disadvantage of consequentialism? Do you agree with him?
6. What does Williams mean by integrity, and how does he argue for his claim that utilitarianism
constitutes an attack on one’s integrity? Do you find his argument convincing? Why or why not?