O’Neill’s Kantian Argument for Famine Relief. O’Neill thinks that Kant’s theory might have little to say about famine relief since the theory requires

O’Neill’s Kantian O’Neill’s Kantian Argument for Argument for Famine ReliefFamine Relief

O’Neill thinks that Kant’s O’Neill thinks that Kant’s theory might have little to theory might have little to say about famine relief since say about famine relief since the theory requires that we the theory requires that we refrain from harming, but refrain from harming, but does not seem to require does not seem to require that we help. that we help.

If you are a member of a If you are a member of a famine-stricken population, famine-stricken population,

you have a duty …you have a duty …

not to cheatnot to cheat

to fulfill your duties to particular to fulfill your duties to particular others, for example, your others, for example, your dependents dependents

If you live with or near famine, If you live with or near famine, you have a duty …you have a duty …

not to deceive or coerce members of not to deceive or coerce members of famine-stricken populations in order to famine-stricken populations in order to gain political or commercial gain political or commercial advantagesadvantages

O’Neill suggests that “relief of O’Neill suggests that “relief of famine must stand very high famine must stand very high among duties of beneficence.” among duties of beneficence.” Unfortunately, O’Neill fails to Unfortunately, O’Neill fails to offer a very convincing offer a very convincing argument for this claim. There argument for this claim. There is, however, a Kantian is, however, a Kantian argument available.argument available.

Kantian argument for the claim Kantian argument for the claim that we have a duty to give to that we have a duty to give to

famine relief, 1famine relief, 1

First, recall the practical First, recall the practical imperative: Act so that you imperative: Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of own person or in that of another, always as an end and another, always as an end and never as a means only. never as a means only.



This formulation of the categorical This formulation of the categorical imperative allows us to distinguish imperative allows us to distinguish between kinds of duties. A between kinds of duties. A strongstrong duty duty requires us to refrain from treating requires us to refrain from treating humanity as a mere means. A humanity as a mere means. A weakweak duty requires us to treat humanity duty requires us to treat humanity always as an end.always as an end.



Kant himself recognizes the existence of Kant himself recognizes the existence of weak duties. He says, “To be kind where weak duties. He says, “To be kind where one can is a duty.” He also says that “the one can is a duty.” He also says that “the ends of any person, who is an end in ends of any person, who is an end in himself, must as far as possible also be himself, must as far as possible also be my end, if that conception of an end in my end, if that conception of an end in itself is to have its full effect on me …”itself is to have its full effect on me …”



Next, notice that we can be kind Next, notice that we can be kind to members of famine-stricken to members of famine-stricken populations; it is not populations; it is not impossibleimpossible (or even burdensome) for us to (or even burdensome) for us to make their ends our ends. make their ends our ends.



Thus, we have a weak duty (but a Thus, we have a weak duty (but a duty nonetheless) to give to duty nonetheless) to give to famine-relief funds. We famine-relief funds. We mustmust – we – we are morally are morally requiredrequired to – give to to – give to famine-relief funds. famine-relief funds.

Documents

O’Neill’s Kantian Argument for Famine Relief. O’Neill thinks that Kant’s theory might have little to say about famine relief since the theory requires