Lenman, James (2004) Utilitarianism and Obviousness. Utilitas, 16 (3). pp. 322-325. ISSN 1741-6183
Abstract
This article seeks to diagnose a serious defect in a highly influential supposed counterexample to utilitarianism: Bernard Williams's case of Jim and the Indians. Discussing this, Williams argues that, according to utilitarianism, it is obviously right to say that Jim should kill an Indian. But as this is not obviously right, Williams takes the example to furnish a forceful counterexample to utilitarianism. I note here that the force of the supposed counterexample is in fact very doubtful as the utilitarian can readily enough explain the non-obviousness of the claim that Jim should kill with reference to the non-obviousness of utilitarianism itself.
Metadata
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Authors/Creators: |
|
Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information: | © 2004 Cambridge University Press. Reproduced in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. |
Dates: |
|
Institution: | The University of Sheffield |
Academic Units: | The University of Sheffield > Faculty of Arts and Humanities (Sheffield) > Department of Philosophy (Sheffield) |
Depositing User: | Repository Officer |
Date Deposited: | 17 Oct 2006 |
Last Modified: | 19 Feb 2013 15:20 |
Published Version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0953820804001207 |
Status: | Published |
Publisher: | Cambridge University Press |
Refereed: | Yes |
Identification Number: | 10.1017/S0953820804001207 |
Open Archives Initiative ID (OAI ID): | oai:eprints.whiterose.ac.uk:1595 |