Bernard Williams argued against utlilitarianism using negative responsibility. However, I would like to argue that there does not need to be a case against utilitarianism. For example, if someone is forced to kill either 1 man or 10 men, whether there is a utilitarianist view that one option is better should be irrelevant if negative responsibility is used here. If he was not responsible, than he should not be morally obliged to do either of the option. In fact, if there is a true anti-utilitarianism where less is better, resulting in killing 10 people is better than killing 1 person, negative responsibility still makes the person not morally obliged to do either action, even though if Williams is truly supported of anti-utilitarianism, he would support killing 10 people.