Bernard Williams Against Utilitarianism

To have Integrity a person must adhere to certain morals and standards that they can build themselves off of. Say a vegetarian who finds themselves in a restaurant with no vegetarian options, they would have the integrity to refuse to eat at this establishment and not give up there morals. Integrity however plays a large role in Bernard Williams’ article Against Utilitarianism, he elaborates on the idea that Utilitarianism is in direct violation with one’s integrity. It is violated by something called “negative responsibility” which is the notion that the outcome of an event is on the hands of anyone who could have participated. To display this fault in Utilitarianism Williams brings two examples to the table, one involving George and another

He can accept the job offer defying his integrity but still providing for himself and his family or decline the offer and continue his search for work whilst putting strain on himself and his family. The utilitarian answer is to take the job, George would satisfy his need to maintain an income and support his family. But Williams leads us to question if George’s integrity is at stake and the truth of the matter is that George’s integrity is at stake. He would be participating in a job that he does not agree with and willingly made the choice to take part. An argument could even be made that George could tarnish any future endeavors with being a part of this company. Is his integrity in itself more important than his family and his own wellbeing, assuming that if this job is not accepted there will be a direct effect to these aspects of his life? The utilitarian would say his integrity is not more important but perhaps there is a way to acknowledge Georges integrity and yet still take the job. Not to simply ask George to “bite the bullet” but to take an opportunity to learn from his experience if the job is accepted. If he accepts the job he has an opportunity to soak up information and receive a firsthand knowledge of the industry itself, understanding precisely why he is against this operation. He could use the time he is employed to search for other jobs in his field and when he eventually finds a new occupation he could use his knowledge gained to advocate against biochemical weapons. This route may seem like the high road but it puts his family first and gives him a more robust moral backbone on the issue he disagrees with. Perhaps his decision to accept the job converts his thinking and he finds out that biochemical weapons are something he could