Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing overall happiness. As a result, utilitarians may use people as mere means in order to achieve maximum overall happiness. This could also be interpreted as if the sacrifice of a few leads to the happiness of many, then it shall be done. Onora O’Neill strongly disagrees with this line of thinking. O’Neill is a Kantian and she believes that people should not be treated as mere means. Rather these people should be treated as ends in themselves, and helped to reach a level of autonomous action. Kantians believe that people may be used as means. Means roughly translates into, “two parties taking part in transaction and reaching a consent” (O’Neill, p.512). Treating others as means is a natural process of our lives. Buying goods and selling goods, involve people consenting and that is completely fine. Mere means, on the other hand, translates into, “a maxim to which they could not in principle consent” (O’Neill, p.512). In order for there to be no consent involved in a transaction, this means that either violence, deception, or coercion was used, which in Kant’s view is wrong. O’Neill …show more content…
People have become increasingly insensitive to other’s suffering and people need to be reminded that helping others is required of us. A common concern that is brought up with helping impoverished people is creating a system that properly assists people in achieving a level of autonomous action. In America today, people are constantly arguing and complaining about the current welfare system. Many people believe that the current welfare system enables people to grow increasingly dependent of assistance. Referring back to O’Neill’s thoughts, “There is no royal road to this result and no set of actions that is likely to be either universally or totally effective. Too many changes are needed…” (O’Neill,