asdkasdfafwwef

Today, I thought about utilitarianism. Whether or not one feels that this line of reasoning agrees with utilitarianism ultimately depend on one’s acceptance or rejection of Williams’ decision to disregard the majority’s prejudice. If one accepts this decision, then it is easy to conclude that the minority deserves to continue existing, as the driving force behind killing them all (i.e., the majority’s prejudice) is no longer applicable, so the minority’s continued existence causes no loss of utility. However, if one rejects this view, then an alternative course of action must be taken. Given the constraints of the hypothetical, it seems that the only alternative in line with utilitarian values is to commit genocide against the minority group, as their continued presence is enough to decrease net happiness.
Although Williams’ line of reasoning provides a tempting alternative to genocide for a utilitarian, it is ultimately flawed, as he does not provide sufficient reasons to reject the majority’s feelings. Williams’ grounds for rejecting the majority’s discomfort is that the discomfort they are experiencing is an irrational one that would be ignored by a utilitarian if it manifested in her, so it should not factor into a utilitarian calculation. This assertion lacks both validity and soundness. It is not valid, as irrational feelings and thoughts have the same potential to affect utility as rational ones. As an example of this, imagine a person who suffers from severe, irrational fear of spiders. Despite this person’s best efforts to ignore that fear, they still suffer from crippling anxiety and discomfort when exposed to spiders. If one accepts Williams’ view, then it is entirely acceptable to dump a bucket of with non-venomous, non-aggressive spiders on this person if it brings any happiness to anyone, as the extreme discomfort and anxiety the person who had the spiders dumped on her are irrational, and thus should not be factored into any utilitarian calculation.