Abstract

In this paper I examine O'Neill's argument (from Constructions of Reason) for the inconsistency of the universalized maxim of slavery. Although I agree that the universalized maxim of slavery entails a contradiction, her argument is a bit quick and leaves room for some potentially damaging objections. I intend to show that each of these objections can ultimately be met by expanding O'Neill's argument to include a more detailed treatment of the enslavement relation and its maxim. In so doing I hope to provide a conclusive argument for the claim that the maxim of slavery cannot be conceived as a universal law.