1. Functions of a moral theory
To keep society from falling apart
To diminish human suffering
To promote human flourishing
To resolve conflicts of interest in just & orderly ways
To assign praise & blame: responsibility
In order to “work” a moral theory needs to help resolve moral issues in manner acceptable to society at large.

2. CHARACTERISTICS of Moral Theories
Moral Theories should provide for
1. STABILITY: constant, consistent
Moral issues will not be resolved on whim or caprice.
2. UNIVERSALITY: Principles or practices applied fairly/equally - level playing field
There will not be different rules for different people in the same situation.

3. CHARACTERISTICS of Moral Theories
3. IMPARTIALITY: avoid “inclinations”/each person counts for one
Moral issues will be decided without showing favoritism for a friend or yourself.
4. OBJECTIVITY: Make decisions on a verifiable basis, apart from inclinations/emotions
Moral decisions will not be made on non-verifiable basis, or according to personal preference.
5. [Compassion?]

4. NIELSEN’s Defense of Utilitarianism
Nielsen argues against the idea that there is a privileged set of moral principles that can never be violated through our choices of actions.
He is responding to 2 crits of utilitarianism
Utilitarianism can require sacrifice of an innocent person
Utilitarianism can require us to go against strongly held moral convictions.

5. “Negative Responsibility”
He argues that we are responsible not only for the consequences of our actions, but also for the consequences of our nonactions.
He states 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.

6. Nielsen’s Two Cases Magistrate & Mob:
Nielsen argues since that you can give a ‘consequentialist’ argument either way here, utilitarianism doesn’t REQUIRE the killing of an innocent person in such a situation.
Shows weakness of utilitarianism.
The “fat man”:
Nielsen states the contrast as between inhumanity [killing innocent] to inhumanity plus evasiveness [not willing to choose] Is this a fair contrast?
If we are responsible when we OMIT an action [negative responsibility], then NOT blowing the man out of the mouth of the cave is worse on the consequences than doing it.

7. WILLIAMS opposes “Negative Responsibility”
He thinks that it is a problem because it requires us to act against moral convictions that are central to who we are.
It MATTERS if we violate them because it damages who we are. [Which can affect how we respond in the future.]
Williams argues that the Utilitarian emphasis on “negative responsibility” is because it focuses on situations.
Utilitarianism violates moral integrity because it requires us to reject conscience and our personal ideals for the lesser of two evils.

8. Williams: Is Utility a Moral Theory?
To ask Jim & George to follow a utilitarian analysis is an attack on their integrity. So we must ask:
How deep is George’s revulsion for the research?
And how strong is Jim’s opposition to killing a person?
How does William’s view respond to Nielsen’s view that we hold our moral convictions on the basis of consequences?
Without strongly held moral convictions all that is left is “causal intervention” [Williams]
How do you keep “impartiality”? [Kant]