Jim did shoot an Indian; George did not accept a research job in biological and chemical warfare. George knew that the job would otherwise go to a zealot without scruples, but still refused. Jim knew that nineteen other innocent hostages would otherwise be killed and therefore agreed to shoot one himself. When reminded of the details (in a moment), we see that each has faced a dilemma of negative responsiblity and resolved it as integrity demanded. It seems that both cannot be right. Yet, given Bernard Williams' outlook on ethics and the limits of philosophy, and granted his way of connecting ideas of action, integrity, and a meaningful individual life, George and Jim need not act in carbon copy. Serious moral choices are made in a sort of middle distance between the everyday and the eternal. In the middle distance we each have our separate projects, to be reflected on, but not to be set aside. Williams is arresting in his account both of what can give a shape to a life, and of the angle from which we must look. Although I shall dissent in the end, he captures my ethical doubts with unnerving skill and I hope to have learnt much on the way.

George and Jim turn up as cases to think about in Williams' half of Utilitarianism: For and Against, where they illustrate what is amiss with utilitarian advice to decide moral dilemmas solely by striking a balance of utilities.