Term papers writing service


Bernard williamss definition of belief in his paper deciding to believe

Biography Bernard Williams was born in Essex in 1929, and educated at Chigwell School and Balliol College, Oxford, where he read Greats, the uniquely Oxonian degree that begins with Homer and Vergil and concludes with Thucydides, Tacitus, and surprisingly perhaps the latest in contemporary philosophy.

At this time, he also began to publish books. His first book, Morality: Posthumously three further collections appeared: In the Beginning was the Deed ed. Geoffrey Hawthorn2005, A Sense of the Past, 2005, and Philosophy as a Humanistic Discipline 2006 ; at least the second and third of these three collections are already having a considerable impact on philosophy, partly because they include essays that were already well-known and widely discussed in their original places of appearance.

In 1973 Williams also brought out a co-authored volume, Utilitarianism: For and Against, with J. Then in 1978 Williams produced Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry. These policies had not stopped him from publishing, in 1985, the book that offers the most unified and sustained presentation of what Williams had to say about ethics and human life: Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy.

On his return to Britain in 1990 incidentally the year of Mrs. More about the morality system in sections 2 and 3. In 1999 he published an introductory book on Plato Routledge. After 1999—when he was knighted—he began to be affected by the cancer which eventually killed him, but was still able to bring out Truth and Truthfulness in 2002.

In this Williams argues, against such deniers of the possibility or importance of objective truth as the pragmatist Richard Rorty and the deconstructionist Jacques Derrida, that it is indispensable to any human society to accept both truth and truthfulness as values, and sincerity and accuracy as corresponding virtues. Williams himself attempts to provide such a potential explanation, which if plausible will—given the impossibility of recovering the actual history—provide us with as much insight as we can reasonably hope for into how the notions of truth and truthfulness did in fact arise.

This is the assumption that, if there is to be serious ethical thought, then it must inevitably take the form of moral theory. Alternatively, the theory does represent experience, but an impoverished experience, which it holds up as the rational norm—that is to say, the theory is stupid.

The first two of the three themes from Williams that we pick for closer attention are both campaigns of argument against positions: Moral philosophy, he claims, has found an original way of being boring: However, while some or even many philosophers today do applied ethics by applying some general, abstract theory, a problem with many of them, as Williams pointed out in an interview in 1983, is that those who proceed in this way often seem to lose any real interest in the perspectives of the human beings who must actually live with a moral problem: I do think it is perfectly proper for some philosophers all of the time and for other philosophers some of the time to be engaged in technical issues, without having to worry all the time whether their work is going to revolutionise our view of the employment situation, or something of that kind.

But an awful lot of it consists of what can be called in the purely technical sense a kind of casuistry, an application of certain moral systems or principles or theories to discussing what we should think about abortion.

But he did not think that we should follow the moral philosophers of his day in preferring the schematic over the detailed, or the general over the particular. Here, Williams joins a long critical tradition that stretches at least back to G. Moreover, as a general criticism of moral philosophy, this point arguably remains quite correct even today. More properly philosophical, on emotivist and similar views, was a research-programme that became absolutely dominant during the 1950s and 1960s in Anglophone philosophy, including moral philosophy.

This was linguistic analysis in bernard williamss definition of belief in his paper deciding to believe post-Wittgensteinian style of J. Hare argued that it followed from the logic of these terms, when used in their full or specially moral sense, that moral utterances were 1 distinct from other utterances in being, not assertions about how the world is, but prescriptions about how we think it ought to be; and 2 distinct from other prescriptions in being universalisable, by which Hare meant that anyone who was willing to make such a prescription about any agent, e.

These—Williams gives coward, lie, brutality and gratitude as examples—are concepts that sustain an ethical load of a culturally-conditioned form, and hence succeed both in being action-guiding for members of that cultureand in making available to members of that culture something that can reasonably be described as ethical knowledge.

Given that my society has arrived at the concept of brutality, that is to say has got clear, at least implicitly, about the circumstances under which it is or is not applicable, there can be facts about brutality hence, ethical facts and also justified true beliefs[ 8 ] about brutality hence, ethical knowledge. Moreover, this knowledge can be lost, and will be lost, if the concept and its social context is lost.

For a strikingly similar philosophical project to that suggested by this talk of thick concepts, cp. We do not suppose that all moral language not even—to gesture towards an obviously enormous difficulty—all moral language in English has always and everywhere had exactly the same presuppositions, social context, or cultural significance. So why we should suppose that moral language has always and everywhere had exactly the same meaning, and has always been equally amenable to the analysis of its logical structure offered by Hare?

Or by anyone else: Basing moral objectivism on the foundations of a linguistic approach leaves it more vulnerable to relativistic worries than other foundations do. In its turn, this question is very apt to breed the further question how, if our moral language lacks this universal jurisdiction over other societies, it can make good its claim to jurisdiction even in our society.

As Anscombe[ 10 ] puts it 1958: That is a big question, because Williams spent pretty well his whole career describing and criticising them. This implies, second, that moral obligations cannot really conflict 185: In any deliberative contest between a moral obligation and some other consideration, the moral obligation will always win out, according to the morality system.

The only thing that can trump an obligation is another obligation 1985: Ninth, and finally, the morality system is impersonal. We shall set this last feature of the system aside until section 4, and focus, for now, on the other eight.

Bernard williamss definition of belief in his paper deciding to believe

For each of the theses, Williams has something at least one thing of deep interest to say about why we should reject it. In real life, Williams argues, there surely are cases where we find ourselves under ethical demands which conflict. Suppose for example[ 15 ] that I, an officer of a wrecked ship, take the hard decision to actively prevent further castaways from climbing onto my already dangerously overcrowded lifeboat. Afterwards, I am tormented when I remember how I smashed the spare oar repeatedly over the heads and hands of desperate, drowning people.

Yet what I did certainly brought it about that as many people as possible were saved from the shipwreck, so that a utilitarian would say that I brought about the best consequences, and anyone might agree that I found the only practicable way of avoiding a dramatically worse outcome.

Moreover, as a Kantian might point out, there was nothing unfair or malicious about what I did in using the minimum force necessary to repel further boarders: So what will typical advocates of the morality system have to say to me afterwards about my dreadful sense of regret? My anguish is not irrational but entirely justified.

Moreover, it is justified simply as an ex post facto response to what I did: The third thesis Williams mentions as a part of the morality system is the obligation out-obligation in principle, the view that every particular moral obligation needs the backing of a general moral obligation, of which it is to be explained as an instance.

Williams argues that this thesis will typically engage the deliberating agent in commitments that he should not have. For one thing, the principle commits the agent to an implausibly demanding view bernard williamss definition of belief in his paper deciding to believe morality 1985: At this stage, certainly, only an obligation can beat an obligation [cp. But even if it does hold, it is not clear how the general duty explains the particular one; why are general obligations any more explanatory than particular ones?

Bernard Williams

Dancy 2004, and Chappell 2005. Another inappropriate commitment arising from the obligation out-obligation in principle, famously spelled out at 1981: The notion that moral obligation is inescapable is undermined by careful attention to this concept of importance, simply because reflection shows that the notion of moral obligation will have to be grounded in the notion of importance if it is to be grounded in anything that is not simply illusory. But if it is grounded in that, then it cannot itself be the only thing that matters.

Hence moral obligation cannot be inescapable, which refutes the fourth thesis of the morality system; other considerations can sometimes override or trump an obligation without themselves being obligations, which refutes the fifth; and there can be no point in trying to represent every practically important consideration as a moral obligation, so that it is for instance a distortion for Ross The Right and The Good, 21 ff.

As Williams comments 1981: To understand this notion, begin with the familiar legal facts that attempted murder is a different and less grave offence than murder, and that dangerous driving typically does not attract the same legal penalty if no one is actually hurt. Inhabitants of the morality system will characteristically be puzzled by this distinction.

One traditional answer—much favoured by the utilitarians—is that these sorts of thoughts only go to show that the point of blame and punishment is prospective deterrence-basednot retrospective desert-based. There are reasons for thinking that blame and punishment cannot be made sense of in this instrumental fashion cp.

If this gambit fails, another answer—favoured by Kantians, but available to utilitarians too—is that the law would need to engage in an impossible degree of mind-reading to pick up all and only those cases of mens rea that deserve punishment irrespective of the outcomes. Even if this is the right thing to say about the law, the answer cannot be transposed to the case of morality: Thus, morality presumably ought to be just as severe on the attempted murderer and the reckless but lucky motorist as it is on their less fortunate doubles.

Williams has a different answer to the puzzle why we blame people more when they are successful murderers, or not only reckless but lethal motorists, despite the fact that they have no voluntary control over their success as murderers or their lethality as motorists.

His answer is that—despite what the morality system tells us—our practice of blame is not in fact tied exclusively to voluntary control. We blame people not only for what they have voluntarily done, but also for what they have done as a matter of luck: The way we mostly think about these matters often does not distinguish these two elements of control and luck at all clearly—as is also witnessed by the important possibility of blaming people for what they are.

Parallel points apply with praise. A fault-line in our notions of praise and blame is revealed by the fact that, intuitively, it is not: As the Greeks knew, such terrible happenings will leave their mark, their miasma, on the agent. Do we understand the terror of that discovery only because we residually share magical beliefs in blood-guilt, or archaic notions of responsibility?

In this way, he controverts the eighth thesis of the morality system, its insistence on the centrality of blame; which was the last thesis that we listed apart from impersonality, the discussion of which we have postponed till the next section.

Williams against utilitarianism [T]he important issues that utilitarianism raises should be discussed in contexts more rewarding than that of utilitarianism itself… the day cannot be too far off in which we hear no more of it UFA: As we have already seen, he believes that ethical thinking cannot be systematised without intolerable distortions and losses, because to systematise is, inevitably, to streamline our ethical thinking in a reductionist style: Again, as a normative system, utilitarianism is bernard williamss definition of belief in his paper deciding to believe a systematisation of our responses, a way of telling us how we should feel or react.

Of course, Williams also opposes utilitarianism because of the particular kind of systematisation that it is—namely, a manifestation of the morality system. Pretty well everything said in sections 2 and 3 against morality in general can be more tightly focused to yield an objection to utilitarianism in particular, and sometimes this is all we will need to bear in mind to understand some specific objection to utilitarianism that Williams offers.

Thus, for instance, utilitarianism in its classic form is bound to face the objections that face any moral system that ultimately is committed to denying the possibility of real moral conflict or dilemma, and the rationality of agent-regret. Above all, utilitarianism is in trouble, according to Williams, because of the central theoretical place that it gives to the ninth thesis of the morality system—the thesis that we put on one side earlier, about impersonality.

Other forms of the morality system are impersonal too, of course, notably Kantianism: It is concerned only that good consequences be produced, but it does not offer a tightly-defined account of what it is for anything to be a consequence. Or rather it does offer an account, but on this account the notion of a consequence is so loosely defined as to be all-inclusive 1971: Consequentialism is basically indifferent to whether a state of affairs consists in what I do, or is produced by what I do, where that notion is itself wide… All that consequentialism is interested in is the idea of these doings being consequences of what I do, and that is an idea broad enough to include [many sorts of] relations.

This explains why consequentialism has the strong doctrine of negative responsibility that leads it to what Williams regards as its fundamental absurdity. Williams himself is not particularly impressed by those venerable distinctions;[ 21 ] but he does think that there is a real and crucial distinction that is closely related to them, and that it is a central objection to utilitarianism that it ignores this distinction.

In a slogan, the integrity objection is this: As Williams famously puts it UFA: The point is that [the agent] is identified with his actions as flowing from projects or attitudes which… he takes seriously at the deepest level, as what his life is about… It is absurd to demand of such a man, when the sums come in from the utility network which the projects of others have in part determined, that he should just step aside from his own project and decision and acknowledge the decision which utilitarian calculation requires.