Acts of utilitarianism define the extreme measures of the just and unjust that are based on unknown information. As people grow weary of gaining further knowledge, the extraordinary questions tend to appear as common language. The questions are highly common amongst everyday discourse. Therefore, to challenge utilitarianism is to question how we develop criteria itself. The criterion varies depending on the circumstance, which reflects to a certain outcome. In other words, these outcomes change depending on the way we create knowledge. Unconfirmed evidence presented for a certain criterion is: Jim, whom has wound up in a small South American town, tied up with 20 Indians that were protesting against the government. As a notice Jim was identified as an honoured visitor from another land and was granted permission to become free. However, he was given the condition that he had to kill one Indian to save 19 others. Well, what criteria would Jim use to determine which Indian he would kill? The notion of the process of decision-making creates a challenging barrier for any individual with a bias or personal relationship educated on the matter. A question of morality plays a role within this dilemma. Why? Residing in the tendency to question is the morality of responsibility of each action that is successfully implemented. Consider the possibility all the information was not provided and the individual was forced to make a decision in a specific deadline. If it were to consider then a decision would be concluded on impulse without further thought. How informed are our decisions? It appears; the decision can consider the questions of rationality. Nevertheless, the act of utilitarianism in itself is a just act based on the unconfirmed data, yet again what about the act of utilitarianism regarding how we confirm data?
A new dilemma has developed mentally regarding the acts of utilitarianism for Williams arguing against it. To state that utilitarianism cannot fully account for everything morally relevant is biased on the behalf of Williams. The construction of the biased argument has a biased perspective. The outcome of the act of utilitarianism varies depending on the intensity of the ignorance of the individual or the extent of our blind spots. What is the definition of ignorance in a sense of utilitarianism? Perhaps it is consider the common educated portion of the person in the decision-making process regarding the act. Another statement to emphasis this ignorance is: the common knowledge of the situation present to the person. Consider the intensity of ignorance and how it impacts the moral relevancy of nature. [It could be argued that] An individual with a higher intensity would lower the moral relevancy of utilitarianism. An excellent example would be the Jim scenario in South America. Pedro directs his orders to Jim to kill the one Indian in order to free 19 others. Yet in this circumstance Jim was given orders with lack of information and a specific deadline. A huge contribution to the higher intensity of ignorance and lower moral relevancy presented. As it appears the predicament has been concluded, based on the status of the circumstance and influencing the outcome.
Nevertheless, another factor to consider is a situation where the individual has lower intensity of ignorance, which also increases the moral relevancy. Solely provided in conscious effort is an example: George, a PhD chemist is having difficulty finding a job while living with health problems. However, George can receive a job in a laboratory working in chemical biological warfare. Upon the job offer, George realizes that the job title breaches his moral code. Despite the job title, George’s wife suggests he takes the opportunity with the idea that he has a family to support. In response, the utilitarianism act is not fully accountable for everything relevant because of the psychological effects. The psychological effects are caused by an unconscious moral code developed by the individual. In the moment, a second thought surfaces to what are conscience and how does it address the situation? A question is whether the wife possibly heightens his intensity of ignorance?
Although, George’s wife’s outlook appears as a personalised motive, nonetheless, it instils the heighten intensity of ignorance towards the circumstances. The personalised motive was initiated with a display of low moral relevancy. A moral relevancy that is, rather an unconscious misconception of the term alone. George’s wife’s response is indirectly isolating individual means, demonstrating an underdeveloped sense of morality. Moreover, it is a selfish act utterly displayed as an inconsideration of others and replicates the nature of “selfish beings.” As selfish beings, it can also alter the process of the decision, circumstances and outcome separately. Subconsciously nature proceeds to a dilemma varying the outcomes acts of utilitarianism
A further emphasis is required on the analogy of the act of utilitarianism, such as the beneficial role of the decision-maker. A definite conclusion is the reality of the societal impact created by the decision-maker. In any scenario, as stated throughout, the probabilities fluctuated dependent on the intensity of ignorance and measure of moral relevancy. A rare occasion occurs when the individual is reluctant to choose an option out of an immature mentality. Psychological effects can speculate in the individual spontaneously, yet it perceives to exist momentary. As a result, the factors lay the pillars and foundation for the act of utilitarianism to exist. Incidentally, the factors spark confusion about the regard towards the general subjective views on moral relevancy.