Hall of Infinite Doors
The concept of negative responsibility is that someone is just as responsible for events they do not prevent as they are for events they intentionally cause. A major issue with negative responsibility and consequentialist utilitarianism in general is that it does not account for integrity and personal responsibility. Williams uses several examples to demonstrate Utilitarian doctrine's inability to deal with the concept of integrity and the inherent flaws in the negativity principal.
One example Williams employs involves a man, Jim, who must either kill one Indian or another man, Pedro, will kill all twenty Indians and Jim. From a utilitarian standpoint, Jim should kill the one Indian to minimize suffering. Furthermore, through the concept of negative responsibility, if Jim does not kill the one Indian then he is responsible for the death of all twenty. This means that by refusing to kill, he is causing the death of all of the Indians. What this solution does not factor in though, is Pedro's free will. Pedro is killing the Indians independently of Jim even if he says otherwise. Jim's refusal does not cause Pedro to kill the Indians, Pedro instead chooses to do so. If Jim does decide to shoot the Indian, he is doing so because of Pedro's will or what Williams describes as Pedro's projects. Projects are people's personal agendas. If one believes in negative responsibility, their actions must then take into consideration all other individuals projects whether they are negative or positive and the consequences of them. Essentially, this means conforming to the will of other individuals to prevent their negative intentions from seeing fruition. This surrender of ones own projects in light of others' projects is a sacrifice of ones own integrity.
The concept that we are more responsible for our own actions than the actions of others contradicts negative responsibility which holds the two under equal responsibility. If an individual places strong emphasis on personal responsibility, they have integrity. Utilitarianism holds that we should not consistently practice integrity. Williams gives another example to demonstrate this where a man, George, needs money for his family which he can obtain through working for a chemical weapons factory. Even if he doesn't work for the company, another individual will take his place. Therefore, the Utilitarian answer is to take the job. The issue this does not address is the emotional distress George would feel from going against his integrity. Utilitarian doctrine holds these types of feelings to be irrational and they should not be heeded. In order to espouse utilitarian doctrine, specifically the negative responsibility principal one has to hold integrity to be an irrational value. Even so, the distress involved with one feeling wrong in their own moral compass could override the benefits of a decision, something that utilitarian philosophy seems to disregard.
Negative responsibility will ultimately lead to individuals become a slave to the intentions of others and having to make decisions that are morally abhorrent to their own personal sense of right and wrong.
One example Williams employs involves a man, Jim, who must either kill one Indian or another man, Pedro, will kill all twenty Indians and Jim. From a utilitarian standpoint, Jim should kill the one Indian to minimize suffering. Furthermore, through the concept of negative responsibility, if Jim does not kill the one Indian then he is responsible for the death of all twenty. This means that by refusing to kill, he is causing the death of all of the Indians. What this solution does not factor in though, is Pedro's free will. Pedro is killing the Indians independently of Jim even if he says otherwise. Jim's refusal does not cause Pedro to kill the Indians, Pedro instead chooses to do so. If Jim does decide to shoot the Indian, he is doing so because of Pedro's will or what Williams describes as Pedro's projects. Projects are people's personal agendas. If one believes in negative responsibility, their actions must then take into consideration all other individuals projects whether they are negative or positive and the consequences of them. Essentially, this means conforming to the will of other individuals to prevent their negative intentions from seeing fruition. This surrender of ones own projects in light of others' projects is a sacrifice of ones own integrity.
The concept that we are more responsible for our own actions than the actions of others contradicts negative responsibility which holds the two under equal responsibility. If an individual places strong emphasis on personal responsibility, they have integrity. Utilitarianism holds that we should not consistently practice integrity. Williams gives another example to demonstrate this where a man, George, needs money for his family which he can obtain through working for a chemical weapons factory. Even if he doesn't work for the company, another individual will take his place. Therefore, the Utilitarian answer is to take the job. The issue this does not address is the emotional distress George would feel from going against his integrity. Utilitarian doctrine holds these types of feelings to be irrational and they should not be heeded. In order to espouse utilitarian doctrine, specifically the negative responsibility principal one has to hold integrity to be an irrational value. Even so, the distress involved with one feeling wrong in their own moral compass could override the benefits of a decision, something that utilitarian philosophy seems to disregard.
Negative responsibility will ultimately lead to individuals become a slave to the intentions of others and having to make decisions that are morally abhorrent to their own personal sense of right and wrong.