Legislating Morality: A Kant and Mill Perspective

Philosophy is the study of knowledge, reality, existence and thought processes. Immanuel Kant from Prussia, (currently Russia) for whom was influential during the Enlightenment period; and John Stuart Mill from Great Britain whom was present during the Romantic era, explored ideas that they believed would create a more fair and just society, by trying to legislate morality. Morality cannot be legislated because it is a concept of right and wrong created by each different religion, region and culture; issues are not black and white.

The idea of enslaving another for someone else’s own personal gain has made an impact all throughout history and still continues to effect the world today, either in it’s traditional sense or modern sense.

“The categorical imperative would be that one which represented an action as objectively necessary for itself, without any reference to another end, (Groundwork for Metaphysics of Morals, 2nd Section, Immanuel Kant, 1797). Kant’s Categorical Imperative is basically not to be a ‘means to an end,’ or not use people as tools for your own personal gain. Take for example during colonial times when a family would give there child to a master craftsman, so that the child would learn that particular trade after so many years of working. Many of these trades were medicine, blacksmith and carpentry; from the moment the children were given to the master craftsman they now depended on the craftsman for food, shelter and knowledge. The children would work long hard hours tending to whatever the master needed or wanted. Kant would not have agreed with these practices because both parties were using each other; the children was in essence a slave for the master craftsman because he did whatever he was told but the child is also just using the master for his insight. “Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable that are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention

“The categorical imperative, which declares the action for itself as objectively necessary without reference to any aim, i.e., also without any other end, is valid as an apodictically practical principle, (Groundwork for Metaphysics of Morals, 2nd Section, Immanuel Kant, 1797). The killing of animals is necessary because it provides certain vitamins and minerals needed for survival; but sometimes killing can be taken to extremes. By using these animals as a means to an end, or as a tool for survival is could be disputed that Kant would not be in favor because there is only personal gain through these actions. “The theory of utility, meant by it, not something to be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself, together with exemption from pain,” (Utilitarianism, Chapter 2, John Stuart Mill, 1863). The killing through sport is morally unethical because it doesn’t not serve a purpose for the greater good, which could lead us to believe that Mill would not have been an advocator of the sport but he would be for the sake of survival because humans use there time more usefully than