The Argument Of Kantian's Principle Of Humanity

Onora O'Neill presents to us the argument of Kantian's Principle of Humanity and how it gives us an obligation to donate to aid agencies. Kant's Principle of Humanity is stated as an "Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means". The first key argument that O'Neill presents is that duties of justice must be fulfilled because if they aren't people have been used as mere means. O'Neill interprets this in the way that we shouldn't treat people in ways that reflect a maxim they could not in principle rationally consent to. This means that you should treat people with respect in regards to their autonomy and shouldn't use people as a way to reach a maxim. Not
treating people as a mere means requires us to not deceive, coerce, or take advantage of people in disadvantageous positions. Also avoiding participating in institutions that deceive, coerce, or take advantage of such people let us avoid treating people as a mere means.
She also brings up the "Duty of Beneficence" in argument to why we should help with famine relief. The duty of beneficence states it as an act that you use humanity as an end. Which requires us to help others achieve their goals such as helping them to get the basic necessities they need. Treating people as ends requires that we sometimes act to support and improve their autonomy. Giving aid to people living in poverty and hunger can greatly improve their autonomy. The ways of improving their autonomy include making material contributions to famine relief and development, influencing trade policy of developed nations, educating others about the needs of people in such condition. Giving aid is something we can do without too much burden and would provide substantial benefits to others autonomy. O'Neill's obligation differs from what Singer presents in the way that we should give to aid agencies to help make their autonomy better and to not make yourself feel better. Singer believes that we should donate to famine relief to feel better about ourselves for donating to
them.
Upon interpreting these arguments, I believe that Singer has a stronger view when it comes to our obligations to help people suffering from famine and poverty in the third world. I believe that with Singer it takes more out of a person to actually have to give up something to help benefit others. With the example we gave in class about giving up something such as Starbucks coffee it makes you actually stop and think do I really need this coffee. You also have think to yourself how much benefit will I get from drinking this coffee. When in reality if you just gave up that $4.50 coffee for one day you could help save millions of lives which is much more valuable and charitable then drinking a coffee and benefitting from its good tastes for a short amount of time. By you just giving up something that has no effect on you to help somebody while make you feel better morally and ethically as you sacrificed something you didn't to be able to give something to somebody else so they can live a better life.