Chapter 13 Chapter Summary

Focusing on the second (end in itself) version of the categorical imperative, O’Neill attempts to show that Kant’s moral theory is neither impossibly difficult to understand nor excessively demanding to apply in real life. To determine whether what we propose to do is right or wrong, we should look not to the anticipated consequences but to our “intention,” a term O’Neill uses as roughly equivalent to Kant’s “maxim.” If our intention is to involve someone in a scheme to which he or she could not in principle consent, then we are violating the categorical imperative—that is, treating someone merely as a means—and thus acting immorally. To act on an intention that requires deceit or coercion, for example, is to treat someone merely as a means and thereby involve ourselves in immorality and injustice.