Each and every philosophical theory offers a different approach on how one ought to behave in the society. One such popular theory is the utilitarianism theory whose proponents are Jeremy Betham and John Stuart Mill formed on the greatest happiness principle. The greatest happiness principle states that Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce reverse happiness (Cerovac, I. (2015). This implies that Utilitarianism uses right or wrong to judge the human action. According to Benard Williams, Utilitarianism is committed to the ideology of Negative responsibility. That is agents have a responsibility on both the actions produced by his or her own actions and the consequences that happens to other people or events that a person fails to bar other agents from producing.

It is important to define integrity in order to understand if indeed the doctrine of negative responsibility undermines negative responsibility. Integrity can be defined as the prerequisite of being honest, possessing strong moral principles, or being morally upright. Be as it may, it is an individuals choice to be consistent with ethical and moral standards. According to Spector (2014), integrity refers to both honesty and truthfulness or rather the accuracy of an individuals action. A person may maintain that others have integrity to the degree that their actions are guided by principles, values, and believes that they can hold.

According to Williams, the principal of utility tend to weaken personal integrity. The basis of utilitarianism is morally correct action, not essentially character and virtue. Williams criticizes the way utilitarianism puts more emphasis on the necessities that must be fulfilled for an action to be morally correct ( Vaughn, 2015). Particularly specifying the manner in which an individual is required to think about the moral decision. Williams points out that utilitarianism does not recognize causes, personal commitments or any other related factors. As such, a person living using utilitarianism principles would not be in a position to live with integrity (Vaughn, 2015). According to Williams, a utilitarians identity-conferring commitments would be in compliance with utilitarian principles but often undermines personal integrity.

As such, we would end up having a conflict between utilitarianism and integrity because the former would encompass the later. Ashford posits that a virtue of utilitarianism highlights the threats to our goals integrity provided that we exist in a world of suffering and extreme poverty. Any perception that mirrors individuals personal integrity above happiness and general wellbeing of others is deeply flawed. As such, we can say that utilitarianism is not in conflict with the concept of personal integrity. An individual having integrity may differ about what is right, but a person with morals cannot possess integrity. The utilitarian method alienates agents from moral identity and commitments. Deliberating and taking actions that are right or a good thing is based on the moral theory in which we have personal integrity. For instance, being moved by the needs of others requires that we have a substantial commitment that helps persons see themselves as part of a community (Bowen, & Prescott, 2015).