Rawls, Singer, and Williams: Critiques of Utilitarianism
This essay examines three major philosophical critiques of utilitarianism through the work of John Rawls, Peter Singer, and Bernard Williams. It begins with Rawls's "analogy" argument, which holds that utilitarianism wrongly treats society as a single individual rather than a collection of distinct persons. It then evaluates Singer's principle that geographical and social distance impose no moral difference on our obligation to relieve suffering, noting internal tensions in his argument. Finally, it explores Williams's concept of negative responsibility through morally complex scenarios involving personal agency, medical ethics, and workplace decision-making, concluding that neither pure utilitarianism nor its complete rejection offers a satisfactory moral framework.
- Introduction: Overview of Rawls, Singer, and Williams on utilitarianism
- Rawls and the Analogy Argument: Rawls's critique of society-as-individual and the impartial spectator
- Singer on Famine, Affluence, and Moral Obligation: Singer's proximity-neutral duty to aid and its paradoxes
- Williams and Negative Responsibility: Williams on personal agency, inaction, and moral culpability
- Conclusion: No clear winner; Rawls and Williams make stronger cases
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds abstract philosophical concepts in concrete contemporary examples — healthcare systems, North Korea, and workplace whistleblowing — making each thinker's position accessible and testable.
- It maintains a consistent critical stance throughout, offering specific objections to each philosopher rather than merely summarizing their views.
- The pregnancy scenario used to illustrate Williams's negative responsibility is particularly well-constructed, layering multiple variables to expose the limits of utilitarian calculation.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative philosophical analysis: it places three thinkers in dialogue around a single topic (utilitarianism), identifies where they agree and disagree, and then applies independent critique to each. This structure allows the writer to build an evaluative argument across multiple sources rather than treating each philosopher in isolation.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with a brief framing introduction, then addresses each philosopher in a dedicated section: Rawls's analogy and the impartial spectator, Singer's proximity-neutral duty to aid and its paradoxes, and Williams's negative responsibility illustrated through progressively complex moral scenarios. A short conclusion synthesizes the author's overall judgment without claiming a definitive winner between utilitarian and anti-utilitarian positions.
Introduction
This essay addresses three general questions relating to utilitarianism. The first question pertains to John Rawls and his deconstruction of utilitarianism through what came to be known as "the analogy." The second question concerns the views of Peter Singer as stated in Famine, Affluence, and Morality. The third takes up Bernard Williams, who, like Rawls, viewed utilitarianism skeptically and offers specific examples explaining his disagreement. For all three questions, a critique of the overall argument is provided. While cases can be made both for utilitarianism and against it, there are notable gaps in the logic that justifies utilitarianism and governs how it operates in practice.
References
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1).
Smart, J., & Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and against. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.