Utilitarianism and Integrity

I disagree with Williams' assertion that it would be impossible for George will to choose between the two options. In fact, utilitarianism simplifies George's decision-making process. George can determine which decision has the biggest positive impact by utilizing the principle of greater happiness. Williams says that if George rejects the offer, his family would be unable to satisfy their financial obligations. Furthermore, because he is opposed to the use of chemical weapons, he will be more careful to minimize their impact on the people. On the other hand, rejecting this offer means that his family will continue to suffer because there is no income to make ends meet. In addition, this will not stop his counterpart from advancing his interests. Therefore, the job will be offered to someone else, and there are high chances that this person will be a fanatic who will ensure that the weapons bring the gravest damage. Therefore, taking the job maximizes happiness, while refusing the offer will lead to double losses, both to George’s family and the victims of the warfare. The argument of Williams that George will compromise his integrity is invalid because he has more ability to reduce the effect of the biological and chemical weapons while working as an insider. By dissociating with the people conducting warfare, he will allow a fanatic to take charge and lead to more damage. In fact, George can have the greatest impact on convincing other stakeholders to abandon the warfare if he acts as part of them rather than from outside. Therefore, using utilitarianism poses no threat to the ability of an individual to uphold integrity.