Intro to Ethics - A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics (O’Neill)

State the Formula of the End in itself  

“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.” 

What is a maxim for O’Neill? How do maxims relate to intentions? 

• A maxim is the principle you see yourself acting on. It is either a settled policy or, if you have none, the principle behind a particular decision. 

• O’Neill says the difference between maxims and intentions is minimal, since you can get a maxim from an intention by removing particular times, places, and persons so she treats the two as equivalent 

Why does Kant focus maxims rather than consequences? 

Kant says to judge an act by checking whether its maxim uses anyone as a mere means. We don’t need to calculate how much happiness or misery the act will produce. This also means we can test our actions even when we don’t know their consequences well.  

What is the difference between treating someone as a means and treating them as a mere means? 

• Treating someone as a means is using them to get something you want, which is fin and common in cooperation 

• Treating someone as a mere means is involving them in a scheme they could not in principle consent to, as if they were a prop or tool 

Means and Mere Means - What role does the possibility of consent play? 

• Consent is the test 

• If the other person can consent to their part, you are not using them as a mere means. If deception or coercion makes consent impossible, you are.

Means and Mere Means - Give examples of each. 

• Means (not mere): cashing a check with a bank teller, or buying coffee from a barista, where both sides consent 

• Mere means: a false promise or fraudulent contract (deceit), or a moneylender who won’t renew a vital loan unless he gets the debtor’s land (coercion) 

Means and Mere Means - Why is false promising a case of using someone as a mere means? 

A false promise only works if the other person doesn’t know your real maxim. Someone who knew you didn’t intend to keep it would not accept it, so they can’t consent. They are used as a tool in your scheme. 

Why are coercion and deceit central? What are duties of justice? 

• Coercion and deceit are the standard ways of using others as mere means, because consent rules out both. Acts based on such maxims are wrong and also unjust, since they wrong the particular people deceived or coerced.  

• Duties of justice are the duties not to treat others as mere means, and Kant sees them as our most important duties.  

What is required to treat someone as an end in themselves, beyond not using them as a mere means? What is the difference between Kantian justice and Kantian beneficence? 

• Beyond not using someone as a mere means, you must respect them as a rational person with their own maxims. You should also foster their plans by sharing some of their ends.  

• Kantian justice means having no maxims that treat others as mere means. Kantian beneficence means having some maxims that foster others’ ends, and which ones is left to your judgment. 

Scope and precision: in what ways is Kantian ethics narrower in scope than utilitarianism? In what ways is it more precise? 

• Kantian ethics has a narrower scope. It can only judge intentional acts whose maxims you know, so it can’t rank acts or judge groups without decision-making procedures (like the student movement), though it can assess agencies like student unions.  

• It is more precise when information is scarce, because you can usually tell whether an act uses someone as a mere means even when its effect on happiness is unclear. 

What does O’Neill say about the gap between intentions and results? Why does the formula apply to one’s real intentions and not “some prettified version”? 

• O’Neill admits good intentions can lead to bad results, but says such gaps are the exception, not the rule. Our intentions reflect the normal and predictable results of our actions. 

•  If someone’s stated intentions ignore those results, we conclude their words don’t express their real intentions, so the formula applies to the real intention, not a “prettified version.” 

What is the utilitarian life plan? Why does O’Neill find the utilitarian view of the value of human life paradoxical? 

• The utilitarian life plan is to devote your life to getting the best balance of happiness over misery. O’Neill says this task never ends and may require sacrificing happiness or even lives for a greater good.  

• She finds the view paradoxical because living humans are necessary for everything utilitarians value, but what counts is their state of consciousness, not their being alive. So the best results may require some lives to be lost. 

Why do Kantians take human life to be valuable? 

Kantians value human life because humans are bearers of rational life, able to choose and plan. That capacity is so valuable that it shouldn’t be sacrificed for anything of lesser value. So no rational person may be used as a mere means for another’s happiness.