O'Neill and Kantian Ethics

A maxim is a kind of intention that can be generalized into a principle.
Kant's ethics is about acting only on certain maxims, which are principles that apply to all beings equally.
When forming an intention to act, it must pass the universality test (either the first or second formulation).
This involves generalizing the intention as a policy that could apply to everyone.
A maxim is a generalized intention that applies to everyone, decontextualized from specific circumstances.
In Kantian ethics, individuals are responsible for the maxims on which they act because maxims are formed intentionally.
Intentions and maxims are within one's control, making one responsible for them.
The criteria of morality cannot be the consequences, as one cannot control all potential consequences of their actions.
Utilitarianism holds individuals responsible for both intended and unintended consequences, whereas Kantian ethics focuses on the intention and the maxim.
In Kantian ethics, individuals are assessed morally on the principle or maxim, not the consequences of the action.
A maxim is a generalized intention that can be formulated into a more general, abstract form that can apply to everyone.
The formula of the universal law involves acting in accordance with maxims that one can will as a universal law.
Treating others as ends and not merely as means is a universal standard based on shared reason.

The duty of justice is a negative and perfect duty.
It means that no one is permitted to act in a way that treats another as a mere means.
Treating someone as a mere means is unjust because it harms them in some way.
Acting in accordance with mutually consented upon rules does not constitute treating someone as a mere means.
Deceiving or coercing someone is unjust because it harms them.
The fundamental duty as Kantians is to observe the duty of justice, which is a negative duty.
It is negative because it is the duty to refrain from any action that treats somebody as a mere means.
It is the duty to avoid any and all action that can be considered unjust, violating someone's rights or the pursuit of their ends.
It is a perfect duty because there are no exceptions; it is always binding in all circumstances.
Utility is not a consideration; respecting other people's rights should always be prioritized.
Doing one's duty is not a means to achieving some other further aim; it is the aim itself

The duty of beneficence is the duty to do something, to act in ways that promote the ends of others.
It is a positive duty because it is the duty to perform particular actions, namely to help others achieve their aims
Actions must treat people as ends in themselves, not as mere means.
In a kingdom of ends, all are moral equals, and one's ends are as important as anyone else's.
It is not simply sufficient to perform negative duties and not interfere with each other's rights; helping others is also necessary for a society to thrive.
The duty of beneficence is a positive duty, the duty to perform certain kinds of actions that promote the ends of others as ends in themselves.
It is an imperfect duty because it is not always obligatory; it is only fulfilled when one can do so.
One is only obligated to perform the duty of beneficence when flourishing and able to do so.
Kant leaves it open in terms of how and when we help; it is up to us to determine the extent, kind, and resources used to help.
The duty of beneficence is a positive duty because it is the duty to perform specific actions that help others in the pursuit of their ends.

The good moral standing, according to Kant, is achieved when one always observes the duty of justice and sometimes helps others.
If one is not in circumstances where they can help anyone, then the only thing that is binding is the duty of justice.
The duty of justice is perfect, meaning there is no circumstance in which we can violate it, whereas the duty of beneficence is imperfect and conditional.
There will be conflicts in duties sometimes.
In that case, duties are prioritized by the negative duties, but the perfect duties.
Utilitarians can rank actions according to their expected utility.
Kantians, in the case of confliting duties, must establish a lexical priority between rights to show which rights trump others when there's a conflict.
There is a duty to refrain from killing others, but also a duty to protect oneself.
One is justified in pursuing self-preservation over refraining from killing others.
Morality is based on a will that is based on desire.
If you want to pursue a certain goal, then you have an obligation, but if you do not desire it, then you do not.
Kant leaves what defines flourishing open to interpretation.
Flourishing does not necessarily mean being rich but having one's basic needs met with additional time and resources.
Context matters, and the fulfillment of the duty of beneficence will vary depending on the circumstances.

Occurs when an individual makes an exception for themselves to a rule that is universally valid.
This involves recognizing a law or rule that applies to everyone but deciding it doesn't apply to oneself.
The contradiction arises because something cannot be objectively and universally necessary yet subjectively not applicable.
Moral obligations are binding on everyone, and no one is entitled to make an exception for themselves.
Making exceptions to rules leads to a contradiction where something is recognized as objectively universally applicable but not applicable to oneself.

Hypothetical imperatives are about choosing the most efficient means to achieve a desired end.
They are based on instrumental rationality and means-ends relationships.
If one wants a goal, they must also want to pursue the means to achieve it.
These imperatives are not moral but rather about prudence and skill.
Moral imperatives cannot be hypothetical because they are not conditional on one's desires.
Moral obligations are not optional and cannot be opted out of based on convenience.
Hypothetical imperatives are about choosing the means to achieve a goal, but moral imperatives are about what is right, independent of usefulness.