Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
In the space of morals and values, integrity stands as one of the most commonly revered. It permeates through all aspects of an agent’s life and becomes the foundation for the development of a virtuous character. While integrity retains a level of prestige when reflected upon by an agent, and viewed by constitutive others, at times it’s faced by the overwhelming collective. A deluge of moral strife arises out of the need to fulfill the needs of the many by overlooking ourselves. It is the utilitarian that disregards the personal projects of the individuals, as well as displaying ambivalence to the eventual action taker. It is solely focused on the maximization of good regardless of the inner convictions an individual may carry. Williams objects to the utilitarian argument, stating that the utilitarian calculation is “in the most literal sense, an attack on his integrity”. He puts forth the notion that integrity gives us a platform to retain agency when the value of our projects is dissolved relative to the collective. His attitudes are revised by Daniel D who deeply analyses the key arguments posited by Williams and presents spaces of thought that may call integrity into question. In doing so, he illustrates why integrity is a key component in the revision of normative theory, and should not be simply overlooked when calculating the morally right action that should be undertaken.
Williams underpinning criticism of utilitarianism is it “attacks the integrity of agents”. He does not intend to diminish the legitimacy of utilitarianism and other versions of consequentialism. He illustrates his arguments through the cases of George and Jim, explaining that should utilitarianism be true, then it is quite clear that George should accept the job as a researcher in bio-chemical warfare, and that Jim should shoot the innocent Indian. While the decisions to be actioned in both scenarios appear obvious, one could suggest that utilitarianism over-simplifies calculating the morally correct decision. There is a deeper level of moral and practical consideration than utilitarianism contemplates. In the situations presented above, utilitarianism’s central objective is to maximize aggregate utility, not take into account the personal projects of the relevant individuals involved. A prompt response to this objection is that utilitarianism simply does not need everyone to desire the project of promoting the greatest amount of utility. Moseley adds that supporters of utilitarianism do not necessarily back it as being a good method for decision-making for practical consideration. Instead, it is viewed “as a criterion of the moral rightness of actions”. It considers the outcome that will best serve the majority, focusing on the most positive outcome visible externally, while offering little to no consideration of the agent’s internal convictions. The objection is that utilitarianism is unable to understand the way people are related to their actions as well as the stark differences between the actions of one person and the actions of another. It alienates individuals from their projects and is unable to grasp the moral differences between the projects and desires of others and the projects and desires of our own.
This weakness in utilitarianism’s decision procedure is revealed when taking into account the notion of negative responsibility. Williams presents the concept as, “if I am ever responsible for anything, then I must be just as responsible for things that I allow or fail to prevent, as I am for things that I, in the more everyday restricted sense, bring about”. This conveys a utilitarian rebuttal demonstrating the moral significance of the contrasts between exclusions and actions, due to utilitarianism serving as a rendition of consequentialism. Williams asserts that consequentialist theories of morality are often concerned with the maximization of certain ‘states of affairs’ and that it is irrelevant should this occur due to one’s actions or because of other causal factors. He maintains that the notion of negative responsibility is the outcome of consequentialism standing firm about ‘states of affairs’ bearing ultimate value in the world. So long as consequentialist theory deems states of affairs as the most valuable, then there remains little space for one to view their projects and actions with value. Utilitarianism’s negligible view of an individual’s projects and actions emerges due to severe impartiality permeated through utilitarianism, presupposed by the notion that considerations of morality need an indicator or criterion of right action that agents must adhere by to do ‘what is morally right’.
Williams puts forth that integrity is a human quality that is deeply admirable, although is not quite a virtue. He claims a notion that integrity is a characteristic that eventuates from individuals following through on their deep projects. He determines that central to integrity is the success one realizes when pursuing a deep project. If an individual offers their best possible effort to achieve this, then they do not possess integrity in Williams’ opinion. If one maintains that someone who tries their hardest to materialize their deep projects must have integrity, then one’s beliefs are opposed to a conception of integrity as held by Williams. Whether a person possesses integrity or not comes down to luck in Williams’s opinion, feeling that it requires the fulfillment of one’s deep projects that are pursued. Moseley is excellent in recounting a portion of Williams’s thoughts, saying “Integrity is not a unique disposition or motive that enables S to act from S’s deepest motives” adding that integrity may result from a variety of constitutive factors. He makes an important distinction that “if S acts from S’s deepest motivations or dispositions, then S displays integrity but S is not motivated by S’s integrity, S is motivated by those deep motives and concerns”. Moseley expresses that a person’s deepest motives are highly idiosyncratic and that there will be many dispositions and concerns that influence integrity. Williams’s conception of integrity infers that it exists as a by-product of an individual fulfilling their deepest convictions, although it does not retain any motivational or causal force. He posits that integrity can be regarded as an achievement, occurring as one realizes their pursuits and deeds. However, he makes it clear that it is not a disposition or a motivation with a characteristic thought related to it. Integrity may motivate someone indirectly. Like an incentive that inspires an individual to undertake an activity to realize that incentive, inspiration to possess integrity can motivate one to follow one’s deep projects. As Moseley puts it “it’s the desire to have integrity that is motivating the individual and not the integrity itself”. S attains integrity through the pursuit of S’s deepest projects while possessing the virtues necessary to successfully fulfill them. This conception of integrity avoids the charge of narcissism, as realizing an individual’s deepest projects do not need to be narcissistic. For instance, a parent’s concern for their offspring or one’s love for their country may be projects that inspire integrity.
Human nature is not perfect, and some may argue that while desires of a sadistic or cruel kind may be prevalent, people of integrity demonstrate legitimacy and must be perpetuated by a sense of obligation to impartial moral goodness. This argument merges personal and moral integrity. It should be acknowledged that aligning with the framework of personal integrity can be morally dangerous to individuals: one may end up facing a dilemma of choosing between personal standards of morality and objective standards of morality. Moseley recounts that personal integrity “is a human excellence but it does not shield one from objective moral wrongdoing”. In a sense, then, it is an overstatement to suggest that one who is guided by the framework of personal integrity is ‘narcissistic’ or ‘self-indulgent’. However, it should be noted that personal integrity can put an individual in danger of pursuing the demands of evil projects. An objection that could be raised is that integrity is not a ‘human excellence’, as a lack of personal integrity would be better for an agent with immoral projects. Underpinning this argument is the assumption that human excellence, in any form, is inconsistent with immoral, deep projects of agents. While a common approach would be to hold agents morally accountable for immoral projects, a consideration that is not entirely unreasonable would be to applaud agents for maintaining their integrity. Will Graham has immoral, borderline questionable projects, but viewers of Hannibal cannot help but commend him for his integrity. Moseley references the work of Kimberly Brownlee to make a useful contrast between conviction and conscience, stating that the latter can be normatively interpreted as ‘genuine moral responsiveness’. Therefore, ‘conscientious conviction’ refers to an agent remaining highly committed to the pursuit of their projects. Courtesy of this definition, there is an argument that one’s moral integrity is contingent on acts of conscience while personal integrity is contingent on conscientious conviction. Moreover, one may put forth that conscientious convictions can be reasonably commended and should be protected legally, regardless of being relative to immoral projects. Across many states of affairs, one could reasonably applaud others’ conscientiousness and psychological integrity, even to the extent that others utilize the mentioned characteristics to pursue immoral projects. A negotiation between the realization of immoral projects and human excellence could be detrimental to moral integrity. However, personal integrity appraised could be beneficial to certain human excellences should it be acquired. Complexities arise should one seek to defend a project deemed immoral along one horizon of morality, while simultaneously being permissible along another. Maintaining a stance of this fluid nature demands confronting whether genuine moral dilemmas exist. An issue that is not easy in the slightest.
Integrity demands circumstance-specific examination and while it is frequently charted as an admirable characteristic of an individual, there are instances where it can be a detrimental quality. Williams’ view of integrity sheds light on the significance of broadening an individual’s perspective on morality to consider other constitutive factors such as identity, interpersonal relations, and authenticity. An issue that both defenders of utilitarianism and Williams’ idea of integrity are confronted by is that both conceptions are burdened with communicating the ‘psychological placeholders’ who will operate in their theories. While utilitarians must deliver the states that underpin utility, supporters of Williams need to clarify the significance of personal undertakings that are foundational to integrity. Moseley makes it clear that Williams’ conception of personal integrity is ‘ the pursuit of one’s projects, offering a weighty counter-argument to utilitarianism and illustrating integrity as normatively significant. Although the argument for integrity can hold up when being probed, defenders of Williams’ conception must acknowledge that individuals may be in danger of pursuing immoral projects through personal integrity.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.