Onora O’Neill: The Duty to Foster Autonomy

among the Poor

Reading notes:

1. Section II, 7 – 12 (WHM, pp. 85-93) provide background statistics on world poverty as well as the economic debate between “Malthusian pessimists” and “development optimists.”

2. The argument of Section IV, 19 – 27 (pp. 93-106) in part contrasts merits of a Kantian approach as opposed to a utilitarian. We shall discuss this issue after reviewing utilitarianism next week. But here lies our main focus this week, as we look at poverty through Kantian eyes and review O’Neill’s argument that we have a duty to FOSTER AUTONOMY for the poor.

3. Section VI, 28 (pp. 106-109) concerns “libertarian” attitudes versus Oneill’s Kantian “communitarians”—this is another issue to which we shall return later in the term.

Oneill: FOSTER AUTONOMY

Her argument:

Is the following ethical maxim adequate from a Kantian point of view?

Try to reduce the risk or severity of world poverty.

No, because its severity might be reduced by “solutions” to which vulnerable people would not consent except for their poverty.

Kant’s ethics requires that people be treated as ends in themselves, i.e., with respect for their autonomy.

Autonomous action is not coerced.

[Questions for reflection:

a. Does Kant’s ethics require that a person’s potential autonomy be respected?

b. How can we freely determine our own actions and act out of inclinations or desires?

c. Are we coerced by our desires? Does Kant think we are?

d. How might a value pluralism be compatible with Kant’s view of the duty of beneficence and the notion of happiness to which he appeals in its support on p. 98?]

X’s transaction with Y is coercive (in an ethical sense, says O’Neill, not a legal sense) if Y would not consent except for some exiguous circumstance (e.g., starvation).

People are treated as mere means – in violation of Kant’s categorical imperative – when they are coerced by circumstances as well as by direct threats.

[Question for reflection: By whom?]

Hunger and squalor undercut autonomy.

Furthermore, “top-down” development programs are, O’Neill claims, often coercive in hidden ways.

Thus, better are “bottom-up” programs, such as education and health care, that foster the development of autonomy among the poor.

OVERALL CONCLUSION:

Kantian ethics dictates that we should try to put in place programs that help the poor by extending possibilities for autonomous choice.