Bernard Williams criticized impartiality requirements in ethics through the example of a man who can save either his drowning wife or a stranger, but not both. Utilitarian impartiality suggests he needs a justification beyond 'that's my wife' for saving her. Williams argued that requiring such justification shows 'one thought too many'—healthy personal relationships don't require impartial justification for preference. This challenges whether morality can accommodate partiality toward loved ones.
The passage suggests that
Williams believed we should always prefer strangers to loved ones
ethical theories may face challenges in accommodating the role of personal relationships in moral life
utilitarian ethics always endorses saving family members first
personal relationships require no special consideration in ethics
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. Demands for impartial justification conflict with healthy relationships.
- Context clues: Requiring impartial justification for preferring one's wife is 'one thought too many.'
- Meaning: The theory's demand conflicts with natural partiality toward loved ones.
- Verify: The "challenge" to whether morality "can accommodate partiality" explicitly states the tension.
💡 Strategy: When theory demands something that conflicts with valued aspects of life, infer accommodation challenges.
Choice A is incorrect because Williams defends preferring one's wife without further justification. Choice C is incorrect because utilitarian impartiality seems to require justification beyond relationship. Choice D is incorrect because Williams argues relationships should ground preference.