Definitions and Slavery

In class earlier today, we struck on an issue that I can’t help but to dwell on and that I want to continue discussing here on the blog. I want to continue the discussion of slavery. I want to look at it, both from a Kantian standpoint (deontological) and a Mill’s standpoint (utilitarianism). First, to consider Kant’s viewpoint on the issue, one must first understand the Kantian belief of the Categorical Imperative.

Kant defines the Categorical Imperative as an action that is defined only in such a way that you can will the maxim of your actions as a universal law. We discussed this in class on Tuesday and came to this definition through a means of breaking down the two words that make up this moral law. An imperative is a command and categorical can be defined as absolute and unqualified, which in this case leads to the overall definition that the categorical imperative is an absolute and unqualified command or action that corresponds as moral law.

One maxim of the categorical imperative that Kant makes is that we should not act on our inclinations or desires but instead for our need to do duty. In Kant’s viewpoint our actions ought to follow duty and reach a good will, which is an absolute good whose maxims can be universalized (hence the categorical imperative). So on to the real discussion, if Kant has these explanations on morality, than how would he feel about slavery? In class we determined that Kant would be against it. Kant would be anti-slavery because he believes that people in a society or rather “kingdom” should be treated as ends in themselves, not a means to an end. In slavery one treats a human as a means to an end and takes away their autonomy through suffering and exploitation. Overall, Kant is a firm believer in anti-slavery and doing actions that pertain to our duty.

On the other hand, John Stuart Mill believes in utilitarianism. In utilitarianism the focus is on pain and pleasure and is a version of consequentialist ethics. Our actions can be judged by their consequences, if an action causes pleasure it is a good act and if an action causes pain it is a bad act. Mill uses the “Greatest Happiness Principle” as a means to judge actions. Overall, one should strive to do actions that provide the most pleasure, reduce the most pain, and cause the most pleasure for the most amount of people possible (the greatest good for the greatest number of people). If Mill believes in utilitarianism, do you think that he would be anti-slavery? I want to start by examining this on a small scale. Say that there was a house of 5 people and there was a house servant that would fall under the category of slave. That person would suffer but the 5 in the house would receive pleasure. Is this an example of utilitarianism that Mill would support? The example would show the greatest good for the greatest number, but fails to recognize the servant as an autonomous being.