Similarities Between Kant And John Stuart Mill

The ethical treatment of animals has been an increasingly growing controversy within the last few decades. Although not historically associated, Western philosophy has become a significant and supportive aspect of this delicate topic. The two philosophers that are most often considered are John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. In this essay, we’ll take a closer look at how these two philosophers’ ideology compare and differ when it comes to animal ethics.
First, let’s take a look at each philosophers general creed. John Stuart Mill believed that the foundation of morality is through the Greatest Happiness Principle, a concept that reflects “the greatest good for the greatest number”. It states that, “actions are right in proportion as they …show more content…
If humans gain happiness and can benefit from animal entertainment, medical advancements (derived from using animals as test subjects), and food made from animals, then the means through which these things are made possible are irrelevant. Mill also presented two types of pleasures, intellectual and physical. It can be argued that animals don’t have the cognitive ability to distinguish between each pleasure. Mill supports this argument in Utilitarianism by saying, “The comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beasts is felt as degrading, precisely because a beast’s pleasures do not satisfy a human being’s conceptions of happiness. Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification” (Mill, 1863). This utilitarian perspective requires an individual to consider the result of their actions rather than the actions themselves. Animals, it seems for the most part, do not have this ability. Therefore, they do not qualify as having a moral capacity and, under utilitarian philosophy, do not have