As a line of moral reasoning, utilitarianism appears in many instances to enter questionable territory with regard to its imperatives about acts that a deontologist might designate as inherently immoral. While it is worth noting that in many cases this theory works well, the fact that the cardinal, ideological pillar behind it, The Greatest Happiness Principle, allows for the commission of seemingly immoral acts in certain cases, raises immediate and pressing objections among many people. These morally controversial decisions can range in severity from taking away a child’s ice cream cone to the murderous quandary that was introduced in Williams’ paper; utilitarianism states that if there are benefits at stake, these situations are one and the same: no matter how drastic the measure, the action that results in the most happiness for the most people is the morally right one. This line of thought brings about the concept of a negative duty that results from the fulfillment of some positive duties in such situations; for example, if one were to …show more content…
This situation is, to say the least, a difficult one to navigate, and it is the type that one might employ as a counterexample in argument against utilitarianism; however, Williams includes it in his paper for the sake of generating a counterargument. He goes on to argue that though there are significant psychological and mental factors to be included in the utilitarian calculations of this predicament, they are far outweighed by the potential good that would be done by taking the life of one rather than many. The source of this situation’s inherent difficulty is the fact that such a drastic positive duty is required of the man who has been thrust into