Summary of Onora O’Neill’s ‘A Simplified Account of Kantian Ethics’ and Reflection

(Figure: Portrait of Immanuel Kant )

I. Summary of Onora O’Neill’s ‘A Simplified Account of Kantian Ethics’[1]

In her paper, O’Neill compares Kant’s moral theory – the Categorical Imperative with the Utilitarian approach. The Categorical Imperative contains two formulas, the Formula of the Universal Law and the Formula of the Kingdom of Ends, and the Formula of the Kingdom of Ends (the formula) is discussed in her essay.

The gist of the formula is never treating any person as a means but always as an end at the same time. She explained what is an act and intention (i.e. a particularization of maxim), which an act reflects one’s maxim and the maxim is the principle which one will act in accordingly. Therefore, an act and a maxim/an intention are closely tied. To reflect on whether an act is moral or not, one should investigate the maxim/intention beneath the act instead of the consequences bought by the act, according to this formula.

One may argue that as it is impossible to treat others as a means as we are living in a world where a cooperative scheme of action is necessary for our survival, but what Kant actually meant is that humans should not be treated as mere means only. To treat someone as a mere means, you don't seek his consent about your action, that is deceiving or coercing somebody. Therefore, if you seek consent from a person to treat him as a means and agree on your action, you are not immoral. To treat a person as an end in himself, O’Neill explained that one should foster maxims of another person which such act is called beneficence. She clarified that such fostering has to be selectively done because wants from other people are too many, diverse, and sometimes incompatible with the moral performing agent.

Here, one can notice beneficence is different from justice. To be just, one should not treat people as a mere means but does not need to foster the maxim of other people. Therefore, according to Kan's theory, one has to archive justice and beneficence to be moral. The formula is regardless of the intended outcomes but on the intention of the moral performing agent, which is different from the utilitarian approach.

One of the problems found in Kant’s model is that an act of a group, who is lacks decision-making procedures such as student movement, cannot be determined as moral or not. The second problem is that it neglects the results of an act which sometimes good intentions lead to bad results such as the dreadful results incurred by feeding the starving one. However, O’Neill argues that our intentions reflect the immediate results that we expect to result, which I don't find convincing.

In the final section, utilitarianism is discussed. Utilitarianism values happiness as an important criterion so happiness should be maximized and misery should be minimized in an act. As long as there is enough data for predicting the outcomes of an act, a utilitarian can discern how to act and whether an act is moral or not. Therefore, she pointed out that the task of utilitarians is interminable as one has to keep analyzing a huge amount of datum to foresee the outcomes of an act. In addition, the downside of the approach is that sacrifice of happiness or lives is required to achieve greater happiness of all people in some cases. In fact, as long as the overall happiness of a group is maximized, the consent of the sacrificed person can be ignored and such act of neglect is still moral. In this view, in utilitarianism, it is not morally wrong to use a person as a mere means provided that the result can fully justify the act.


II. Does Kantian ethics require us to help strangers or people in other countries?
In the above discussion on the Formula of the Kingdom of Ends, it is moral if one treats a person as an end rather than a mere means. Therefore, if one helps other people in other countries to get fame or any other advantages, then he is using other people as a means only which is concluded as immoral. However, such a formula cannot discern whether it is a requirement to help strangers in other countries as it would be a moral act if offering no help is in fact treating them as an end. In this sense, the morality of the action will solely depend on the intention of the moral performing agent, regardless of the current situation.

Even turning to the first formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives, the Formula of the Universal Law, one cannot demonstrate it is a requirement to help strangers in other countries. In this formula, Kant states that “Act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law” which you have to act “as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature”. [2] Therefore, we can use the first formula as a maxim: Help strangers or other people in other countries Then, we have to test if this maxim can become a universal law.

Suppose there is a person who was dumped in a forest when he was a bay and raised by an animal. He takes care of himself well when he grows up, he doesn't need to help others or being helped by others. Therefore, "helping others" is not universal in nature in this case, not to mention "helping others in other countries" is universal or not.

For Kant, refraining from helping others cannot be extended to be a universal law as we never know when we will need the help of others in the future and humans are better off from the empirical experience. However, if I am not refraining from helping, I am just incapable to help, am I immoral? Both formulas cannot answer the question because, at the beginning of formulating the theories, the human actual situation was not considered as a criterion by Kant.


III. Utilitarianism or Kant’s theory?
In Kant’s theory, the act itself contains an intrinsic moral value, regardless of the consequences bought. In utilitarianism, the act is moral only the if consequences of the act will maximize the happiness of one or, if extending to a group of people, the world. As pleasure and pain are quantified and assessed in this approach, one may doubt how pleasure and pain can be quantified. In fact, there are schemes proposed for measuring the levels of pleasure/pain. For example, one of the schemes proposed by Bentham is, to sum up the seven aspects of a pleasurable or painful experience such as the intensity, duration and extent. Later, Mill also supplemented that some pleasures are better such as knowledge, freedom and friendship which apparently sometimes we enjoy these higher qualities of pleasure more than eating a delicious meal.

Although both Kant’s theory and utilitarianism have their own weakness, personally I prefer utilitarianism. I think the most attractive part of utilitarianism is that, unlike Kant’s theory, it is linked to our empirical lives and its aim of shaping a better world. If following Kant’s moral rules, there is no guarantee of proving a better world as sometimes good intention incurs adverse impact on human lives.

In addition, I also find the Formula of the Universal Law conflicts with the Formula of the Kingdom of Ends. For Kant, "not to lie" is a universal law and it is moral if you act following this universal law even that would bring misery to another person. For example, in Kant’s ethics, lying is always wrong no matter what the circumstances are. You can save a person by lying to murder but Kant tells you that it is immoral. However, it is apparent to see that telling truth to the killers means neglecting the basic living right of humans. For me, if I tell the killer the truth, the victim becomes a means for me to comply with my moral rules, I rather treat him as an end.

Furthermore, utilitarianism provides a guideline in dealing with a moral dilemma as pleasure and pain bought from various solutions can be compared. As long as there are enough data available, one can compare the consequences of different actions and make a judgment. For example, if three people are falling into the sea and I can only either save two people close to me or a person which far away from me. Apparently, in Kant’s ethics, saving is moral but it cannot tell whether I should save one person or two people. However, if I adopt the utilitarian approach, I can assess the overall happiness of these two choices. Provided that all three people have a considerable similarity in physical and mental status, saving two people seems to be the right decision.



Footnote
[1] O'Neill, Onora. (1985) “A Simplified Account of Kant's Ethics.” Excerpted in J.E.

White (ed.), Contemporary Moral Problems (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.).

[2] Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of ethics, trans-T.K. Abbot, Longman, London, 1965 - P.46


Written in 2018
Re-write and amend in 2021