PRESTOPUNDIT -- A Good Blog at a Great Price. Guaranteed.

Philosopher Bernard Williams has died. You couldn't have spent any time studying philosophy and not have read at least two or three things by Williams. Worth quoting:

He argued that philosophers should look at moral life as it is experienced, rather than see our decisions in relation to some abstract, all-encompassing theory of right and wrong. He wanted a moral philosophy that was accountable not only to psychology but also to other branches of human enquiry, especially history.

In this, he was to become best known for his criticism of Utilitarianism, the school of thought which holds that actions are right in so far as they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Williams's contribution to the field was Utilitarianism, For and Against, one of the most influential critiques of the school.

Williams attacked Utilitarianism on a number of grounds. In one example, a bandit chief tells you that if you kill one of his captives, he will allow the other prisoners to go free; but that if you don't, he will kill all of them. On Utilitarian grounds, the right thing to do would be to do what causes the fewest deaths and kill the captive. But Williams wanted us to see that it is not just what happens (or the consequences) of an action that matter, but who does it. To perform such an act would damage our integrity as a moral agent and, incidentally, our psychological identity.

Similarly, Williams pointed out, a very quick way to stop people from parking on double yellow lines in London would be to threaten to shoot anyone that did. If only a couple of people were shot for this, it could be justified on a simple Utilitarian model, since it would promote happiness for the majority of Londoners.

Williams also famously attacked the philosopher Kant for his overly theoretical view of morals. Kant proposed that we can be properly blamed only for what we do voluntarily and intentionally and that what we should do (in accordance with the motive of duty) is the same for all of us and is discoverable by reason. In Moral Luck (1981) Williams suggested that some of our evaluations on whether or not we have done right or wrong are contingent.

For example, if you drive carefully and, through no fault of your own, strike and kill a child, you may well feel what Williams calls "agent-centred" regret: regret not only that the accident happened but also for the fact that you did it. Even though it was plainly bad luck, you may still feel a sense of guilt and the need to make amends.

In describing this conundrum, Williams looked to the life of the artist Paul Gauguin, who left his wife and children to go to the South Seas and paint. The fact that he produced great paintings, for Williams, made his life justifiable. Had Gauguin not been successful, he would have been at fault for having left his family. The outcome ultimately depended on luck, not - as Kant would have suggested - merely on having the right intentions (or "maxim for action").