Critically compare Kant’s and Mill’s idea of moral worth

Paper instructions:

Answer one of the following four essay questions:

1. Mill holds that when Kant “begins to deduce from [the categorical imperative] any of the actual duties of morality, he fails, almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur” (Mill Utilitarianism, 2). Briefly explain Mill’s objection. How would Kant respond to it? Do you think Mill’s objection is justified?
2. Mill believes that his first principle of morality needs to be supplemented with “secondary principles”. He says that “[i]t is a strange notion that the acknowledgment of a first principle is inconsistent with the admission of secondary ones. To inform a traveler respecting the place of his ultimate destination is not to forbid the use of landmarks and direction posts on the way” (Mill Utilitarianism, 8). Compare Mill’s idea of secondary principles with Kant’s duties. How do Mill’s secondary principles relate to the principle of utility and how do Kant’s duties relate to the categorical imperative? On your view, which account can give better moral guidance?
3. Mill concludes his proof of the principle of utility by saying that “happiness is the sole end of human action, and the promotion of it the test by which to judge of all human conduct” (Mill Utilitarianism, 11). Critically assess Mill’s argument for this claim. How would Kant respond to Mill? Who do you think is right, Kant or Mill?
4. Kant holds that the only thing that “could be considered good without limitation [is] a good will” (Kant GMM 393). Mill’s position is often thought to be directly opposed to Kant’s. Yet, in “Utilitarianism” Mill states that “[t]he morality of the action depends entirely upon the intention—that is, upon what the agent wills to do. But the motive, that is, the feeling which makes him will so to do, when it makes no difference in the act, makes none in the morality: though it makes a great difference in our moral estimation of the agent, especially if it indicates a good or a bad habitual disposition—a bent of character from which useful, or from which hurtful actions are likely to arise” (Mill Utilitarianism, 6 Fn). Critically compare Kant’s and Mill’s idea of moral worth. What is the real point of disagreement between them? Who do you think is right?