Thinking and Deciding

UTILITARIANISM AS A NORMATIVE MODEL 403
explicitly argue this position. Others may truly believe that such wars are always
ineffective. These beliefs, however, may sometimes arise from the belief-overkill
phenomenon discussed in Chapter 9.
Many modern deontologists trace their roots to Immanuel Kant’s (1785/1983)
categorical imperative. Kant argued that moral principles had to be categorical (required
in all cases) rather than “hypothetical” (dependent on other desires). Thus,
the reason to keep promises should not depend on the motive of inculcating trust.
The justification must come from “reason” alone. One statement of the Categorical
Imperative was “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time
will that it should become a universal law.” Thus, making a false promise whenever
it suits you to do so (for example, borrowing money without intending to pay it back)
would not fit. If it were a universal law to do this, promises would be meaningless.
So it is inconsistent to follow such a maxim.
Kant’s categorical imperative is often confused with the generalization test: “Do
whatever would be best if everyone did it,” or “Follow the rule (maxim) that would
best for everyone to follow.” The idea is to evaluate moral principles by asking “What
if everybody did that?” Most scholars do not think that this is what Kant had in mind,
but it is a popular approach to morality. One possible maxim is “Do whatever does
the most good.” This is, of course, the utilitarian rule. If everybody did that, then the
most good would be done.
Other deontological rules are based on the injunction not to use people as means,
but to treat everyone as an end. This would seem to prohibit any form of hurting
some to help others. Kant’s second formulation of the Categorical Imperative reads:
“Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, [1]
always as an end and [2] never as a means only” (Kant, 1785/1983). The negative
injunction “never as a means only” has been the source of much speculation. Because
it contains the word “only,” it is fully consistent with the utilitarian view, which
simply holds that those used as means must also be considered as part of the overall
accounting. But a utilitarian would also find the injunction to be redundant. When
everyone is considered as an end, we weigh the interests of some against the interest
of others, and often we have no choice but to settle for the lesser harm. Perhaps Kant
was drawing on a more common intuition against the idea of using people as means
at all.
The same principle may be part of the doctrine of the double effect in Catholicism,
attributed to Thomas Aquinas (1947, II–II, Q. 64, art. 7) as part of his explanation
of why killing in self-defense can be morally acceptable:
Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which
is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts
take their species according to what is intended, and not according to
what is beside the intention, since this is accidental.... Accordingly
the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s
life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since
one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it