A Defense of Utilitarianism Kai Nielsen

What is Nielsen arguing? Nielsen’s argument is against the idea that there is a privileged set of moral principles that can never be violated through our choices of actions. He believes that we are responsible not only for the consequences of our actions, but also for the consequences of our nonactions. He believes that hard decisions are made by people in extreme situations, not by people with ‘corrupt minds’.  He argues that there may be situations when violence against innocents is justified.

The Magistrate and the Threatening Mob In this case the judge would be preventing carnage by framing an innocent person. Nielsen argues that you can give a ‘consequentialist’ argument either way here, so utilitarianism doesn’t REQUIRE the killing of an innocent person in such a situation. However, in the long run more damage could be caused by questions regarding the corruption/reliability of the justice system. He claims the argument isn’t about moral principles, but about empirical facts. To judge the judge morally wrong doesn’t require an absolutist moral principle.

The role of “common sense morality” This is his argument against “a privileged set of moral principles” He is referring to those moral principles that tell us that something is just WRONG. [such as killing an innocent person.] The question is: What does “universalizing” a moral judgment mean? How far do we need to go in testing them in alternate worlds”? However he argues that how we understand human nature and motivation cannot but affect our structuring of the moral case. And we can give utilitarian weight to our moral common sense.

The Case of the Innocent Fat Man Nielsen believes that in this case we should blow the ‘fat man’ our of the cave opening to save everyone else. The ‘moral conservative’  would say that it is always wrong to kill the innocent. He asks whether common sense moral convictions always function as ‘moral facts’? i.e, to be given the same weight as facts.

The Case of the Innocent Fat Man He argues that the desperate situation does NOT mean that people are callous towards human life. The fat person’s interests are not ignored. And it isn’t “unjust” Why not? What basic principle does justice use? [fairness]

Negative Responsibility He contrasts inhumanity [killing innocent] to inhumanity plus evasiveness [not willing to choose] He argues that we are responsible when we OMIT an action too. What do you think? Are we responsible when we don’t act ? He asks: Can we ever say that something just IS right? What could that mean?