	The subjective universality inherent in aesthetic judgment explicates Kant’s attention to this branch of philosophy. Universality through cognition suggests harmony between humanity by enforcing a commonality present in all human beings. Aesthetics grants entrance to an enlightenment that repudiates prejudice and sensory based assertions. For Kant, realizing this potential for unity transposes aesthetics’ universality into the realms of morality.
Similar to other theorist’s assertion of a social contract intrinsic to human existence demanding certain ethical grounds, the universality assumed here posits a mutual linkage between humans through cognition’s general properties. A morality that truncates itself from human conceptual approaches or individual senses is ‘just,’ and aesthetic judgment creates a route to its perception. Following the same theoretical basis present in the standards for judgment of beauty, a fair morality inundated by a higher power may be accessed. Aesthetics also simplifies an understanding of morality by conjecturing its innate nature; true morality essentially mirrors the definition of ‘taste’ Kant articulated prior: “the faculty for judging an object or a kind of representation through a satisfaction or dissatisfaction without any interest”. If a universal morality means correct taste, then judgment of the beautiful means ascribing a certain morality to a correct situation. 
As with morality, aesthetic judgement also lends its universal agreeability principle to political discourse. In its harmonizing effort, the higher faculties act as a practicum to disregard faction and establish a perpetual peace among constituents. Kant’s belief in a ‘metaphysical morality’ combines theory of law with a priori pure reason, stemming from the same source of cognition associated with aesthetic judgment. To create a fair judicial system or constitution, society admits the paramount importance of incorporating this philosophy, and extending its self-justifying element into creating indifferent laws without ulterior purposes. The training mechanism present in aesthetic judgment and the obtainment of free play’s euphoria bridges the metaphysical with tangible results; in its own way, aesthetics carves a path to omnipresent peace by demonstrating the harmony accessible by all.  
Still, aesthetic judgment’s refusal to adhere to strict rules on what representation qualifies as ‘beautiful’ invokes criticism. Admitting aesthetic judgment’s subjectivity criterion seemingly negates its value as a unifying force. Ostensibly surrendering itself to the realm of arbitrariness with a simple critique: if judgment of beauty relies on no object based criterion, then how can it evoke universally acceptable feelings of pleasure? 
Kant’s theoretical a priori principles of a rational structure intrinsic to all humans acts as his defense. Kant establishes that judgments of the beautiful admit subjectivity yet demand universal agreement through necessary perception of the object which evokes it. Given pure judgment’s separation of concept and senses, he posits the pleasure received in judging the beautiful originates from a flawless, shared force present in all. In order for this mutual perception (regardless of what evokes it) to be possible, a governing metaphysical structure undoubtedly exists. Whereas the source of this pleasure may remain subjective, aesthetic judgment’s justification derives from an undeniable source. 
