Although, Williams fails to provide an alternative moral hypothesis, the philosopher successfully investigated how utilitarianism and its backers root for untenable beliefs about what rational actions entail. On the other hand, Brandt emphasizes that when evaluating the repercussions of the value of an ethical belief, the society should go beyond mere appraisal of the gains of following set etiquettes and instead embrace selective fulfillment of the requirements. This can only be achieved by leveraging the benefits and negative consequences of such rules: for instance, one should appreciate remorse and other dangers linked to interiorizing fundamental prohibitions in the society. This paper analyzes the ethical arguments presented in “A Critique of Utilitarianism” by Williams and “Some Merits of One Form of Rule Utilitarianism,” by Bernard Brandt in their respective articles, in order to establish whose utilitarian philosophy is more effective in today’s society. Overview of the philosophers’ perceptions Williams provides an exceptional theory, which defines positive action, based on whether it results in a favorable situation triggers a fundamental conflict between an individual’s ethical capacities and that supposedly right action.
It is notable that in an effort to employ utilitarianism in balancing and sustaining practicality as an ethical theory, Williams points out the surreptitious incorporation of moral feelings that are not purely utilitarian. For meticulous observation, this confusion often triggers the realization of the weaknesses of a consequentialist approach to understanding satisfactory morality and leadership. By taking into consideration an individual’s ethical inclinations only when they are in tandem with utility implies that there could be a more profound failure to appreciate that such beliefs are often exhibited by the agent’s individual projects and obligations. Therefore, to realize an objective threshold of moral practices, utilitarianism eventually soils an individual’s honor by turning right action immaterial to those initiatives and obligations. Whereas Williams (606-622) perceives that the grounds for the effectiveness of consequentialist moral revolve around to immoral thoughts about moral impacts of the eventualities, Brandt suggests morality is based on moral actions. Brandt argument on utilitarianism contradicts Williams, especially on his suggestion that that the latter’s jump into the impacts of actions occasions the weakening of the individual’s moral standing (Brandt 590-592). In view of this, Williams’ perception of ‘commitment’ as dictated by the party confronted by an ethical dilemma should be based on the actions and not just the consequences. Additionally, in case there is need to maintain honor between individual behavior and minor order projects, it is important to recognize the fact that modern moral theories such as the ones based on consequentialist ideology, this cannot be embedded to individual actions. It is, however, important to recognize that both Williams and Brandt philosophies on ethical actions imply that a certain application is greatly shaped by the actions of an autonomous moral cause. Significance of the ethical goals and actions Williams (607-615) acknowledges that individuals in the modern world are unaware of the connection between human objectives and behavior. Further, the theorist’s argument brings into focus some fundamental issues such as whether individuals take steps for the sole aim of accomplishing particular objectives. And if so, after realizing an intended objective, it is unclear whether the outcome may inspire the pursuing other successive goals in life, because in general, goals in life are