Many philosophers have considered the nature of man in society and man within the scope of a political process, and the outcomes of these reflections have been very useful in defining treatise on particular workings of political interaction. Kant and John Stuart Mill, have considered whether the "end justifies the means" in regards to specific actions and their desired political outcomes. The views of Kant and Mill relation to the issue of terrorism provide an interesting approach into the issue of political action and if the "end" justifies the "means" in creating political change. .
Terrorism can be described as seemingly random acts of violence enacted by an individual or collective for the means of shaping political change or maintaining the current political status in the midst of political change. The central notion of terrorism is that violence defines power. That control can be determined by the use of acts of force, and destruction to gain a specific desired political reaction. .
A terrorist might defend their actions using the political and philosophical premises presented by Kant and Mill, by arguing first that their political cause demanded the terrorist actions. Kant believed that the highest task that nature outlines for us is to establish a "society in which freedom under external laws would be combined to the greatest possible extent with irresistible force" and the outcome would be the establishment of the perfect civil constitution (Kant 45-46). Man's complicity in the development of the central notion of a world order is defined not only by humanity, but by the development of a perfect moral condition, and that more often than not, man is forced into conditions where he must "endure the hardest of evils under the guise of outward prosperity" (Kant 49). .
The argument of Kant against the notion of terrorism appears well demonstrated by the philosopher's view of world order and collective governmental responsibility as an extension of man's movement away from a state of being in nature.