Bernard Williams Morality

Hobbes and Kant both give a different account of the foundations of morality. Drawing from Hobbes’ Leviathan and Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I will compare their understanding of the foundations of morality. I will discuss the conflicting accounts of the role played by reason versus the role played by desire and inclination in the determination of what is good, evil, right or wrong. Hobbes claims that ordinary experiences establish human beings as self-interested and are driven by desire or aversion and that is why morality is grounded by subjective self-interests. On the other hand, Kant provides a purely rational principle for ordinary views about unconditional moral value, morality has a universal law that applies to all rational beings at all times. The following paper will identify and explain the key points and sources of difference between Hobbes and Kant. First, I will explain both understandings of morality. Second, I will describe how the account of the foundations of morality differs in human nature, rationality and conceptions of morality. I will, in conclusion, argue that Hobbes’ account of morality best works with our ordinary experiences and moral convictions.

His lifelong search for a closer personal union with God forged his beliefs and ideas. Rejecting the moderate theology of Puritanism, Williams embraced the radical tenets of separatism, turned briefly to Baptist principles, but ultimately declared that Christ’s true church could not be known among men until Christ himself returned to establish it. From his reading of the New Testament, in which Christ had commanded religious truth and error to coexist in every nation until the end of the world, Williams concluded that liberty of conscience”soul liberty” as he called it was necessary because no one could know for certain which form of religion was the true one God had intended.

These individuals are known to be experts of morality. The chapter proposes two reasons as to why these individuals are called upon so frequently. One, for those who believe and have some sort of religious back round, and second, for those who believe in what is called a “scientific view” of the world. This chapter presents the idea that there is some popular belief that religion and morality go hand in hand and that in order to understand morality, you must understand religion. It is explained that when we view morality from a religious perspective, we give meaning to morality in a way that a “good man” made this world that we currently live in and that we are his children. While the book proposes the question that people who believe in God, or a higher power, base their values on what those religions state is right or wrong, whereas for an atheist the question still remains; how do these individuals weigh their moral compass and place their values?

Ayn Rand has an attitude of condemnation towards the practice of this type of ethics, as it’s fallible when its seems intuitively right that the agent of an action should have some precedence when it comes to acting in their life. She calls those who subscribe to this moral theory “psychopaths who do not challenge altruism’s basic premise”, and also notes that there is an intuitive contradiction, whereby a person in a close relationship

Williams also delivers the idea of agent-regret which, to him, matters to the person in the unlucky case more than any extrinsic moral judgments. Agent-regret is defined as “thought being formed in part by first personal conceptions of how one might have acted otherwise”, (Williams, p.27), and required “a first-personal subject-matter” and “not yet merely a particular kind of psychological content, but also a particular kind of expression”, (Williams, 27). Hence, even if the driver A is morally treated as equal as driver B, the agent-regret of guilt may follow him to the

Utilitarianism is a practical doctrine that is widely accepted in modern society’s economics, politic, and ethics. Utilitarian is driven by the pursuit of happiness. For a utilitarian, everything that will be helpful in the pursuit is considered good. In utilitarianism, an action is good or evil based on its consequences on the happiness of an individual and the happiness of the community. Similar to other doctrine, utilitarianism is not without a flaw. Bernard Williams, in his paper Utilitarianism and Integrity, voices his primary concern in regard to utilitarianism by providing two concrete examples to demonstrate how utilitarianism is only concerned about the consequences of the action and not about the means used to get there. Williams argues that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge the integrity of a person because the ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to produce the greatest happiness overall.

I contend that Plato 's theories on morality are persuaded by concerns he had about moral theory. Specifically, Plato rejects rationality as the boost of subjectively evaluated self-interest because, had he received such an account, his hypothesis of justice would be liable to reactions which he holds are lethal to the contractarian theory of justice. While detailing a hypothesis to stay inside ethical constraints in some cases disregards the groups of scientific theorizing, Plato maintains to avoid this mistake.

In this case Jake Markos is the moral agent and is contemplating on whether or not he should embed spyware into the Diabetes Foundation website that allows his company, ALAC marketing, to collet email addresses and use them to market a product. Other moral agents presented in this case are Nathan Brook, Jake’s boss, Maia Herrick, Nathan’s assistant manager, and ALAC Marketing. In this case, ALAC is the least important moral agent because it possess vicarious moral sensitivity and responsiveness thus, if we examine the sensitivity and responsiveness of its individual employees we would understand ALAC’s position regarding Jake’s dilemma. This is also, in part, due to the fact that corporations employ highly organized holistic decision-making and although corporations are morally accountable it does not mean that individuals who are employed by the corporation are not also morally accountable.

Williams, Bernard, 1973. ‘Integrity,’ in J.J.C. Smart and Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against New York: Cambridge, 108–117.

One problem with these arguments provided by Kennett, McGeer, and Nichols, is that none explicitly address why psychopaths are deemed amoral versus immoral. The term “rational amoralist” is used by Nichols, but is not differentiated between what it means to be an immoralist. Amorality is conceptualized as the inability to differentiate between right and wrong, whereas immorality is conceptualized as knowing what is right versus wrong, but not being motivated to act accordingly. Psychopaths, as described in each of the sources, seem to fit the idea of being immoral rather than amoral in this way. They are capable of understanding the motivations and emotions of others, but do not care to engage with others in such a way that is motivated by their well-being. It may be the case that I have an incorrect interpretation of these ideas.

When an individual is proposed with a moral dilemma they will often seek the advice of others rather than acting solely upon their immediate cultural, familial, and cognitive predispositions; suggesting that judgments are also made about the moral judgments of others (Rest, Cooper, Coder, Masanz & Anderson, 1974).

Williams has a recurring gripe with the ideas of utilitarianism. He believes that in making a utilitarian decision one must forget his integrity, for in making his decision, it is not his personal reputation which takes priority.

If on Tuesday, I suffer an accident and lose all of my memory, it is probable that my family and friends will still love and care for me, creating an impression that I am indeed the same person I once was. These conditions imply the theses of animalism and bodily continuity when it comes to personal identity. However, is this human habit enough to discard the idea that it is psychological continuity that sustains identity? Whilst many may argue that it would be against our intuition to say that I am no longer the same person, I do not believe that this is caused by our intuition, but instead a societal construct that’s sole purpose is to make the trauma of the accident and loss easier to deal with. By using this premise and upholding the psychological

The next stage involves a critical analysis of the just described theoretical systems. We will explore the factors and influences involved in a chosen Case Study where personal influences are involved. Thereafter, we will look into different approaches a Kantian and a Utilitarian would address the issue and the reasons behind. It will be imperative to understand the actual factors influencing decisions under each of the moral systems identified (Lukas 22).

In this paper, I am going to discuss the importance of ethical behavior and its significance in persuasion. I will also define two ethical theories and