Bernard Williams' "Critique of Utilitarianism" focuses on addressing a major philosophical problem posed by utilitarianism. According to utilitarian theory actions can only be carried out if they produce the greatest amount of happiness. An example illustrating this theory is about Jim who faces the dilemma of choosing between either killing one Indian in order to spare the lives of the other Indians, or refusing to kill thereby allowing Pedro the soldier to kill all the Indians. If Jim was to apply the utilitarian theory, he would be led to believe that his killing of one Indian would be the solution leading towards the greatest amount of happiness for all involved.
             The problem Williams has with utilitarianism is that it severely discounts one crucial element in its quest towards deriving solutions to real world dilemmas. That element is the state of a person's private morals; the effects of these morals upon a person can be seen through their emotional and psychological impact upon him/her. Utilitarianism views these effects to be irrational, which means they are not worthy enough to be considered in utilitarian calculations. Thus in the example involving Jim utilitarianism would not allow him to consider what his emotional and psychological states of being would be after he followed the option promoted by it, because these effects are thought to have little consequence to the utilitarian outcome. According to Williams utilitarianism assumes that people are merely empty vessels through which consequences with the greatest utility occur. Its problem is that it does not see that people are essentially moral actors who exercise a great amount of agency while making decisions.
             Williams thus concludes that decisions must be made after a deep understanding of a person's deeply held projects, reactions, and impulses that are shaped by his/her morals. Instead of simply discounting one's moral concerns when...