Which makes a better societal order?

John Stuart Mill believed in an ethical theory known as utilitarianism. There are many formulation of this theory. One such is, "Everyone should act in such a way to bring the largest possible balance of good over evil for everyone involved." However, good is a relative term. What is good? Utilitarians disagreed on this subject. Mill made a distinction between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism, Mill described this principle as follows:

According to the Greatest Happiness Principle ... The ultimate end, end with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments. Therefore, based on this statement, three ideas may be identified: (1) The goodness of an act may be determined by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A "good" man is one who considers the other man's plea

So, perhaps the right question to ask, is, which of the two theories is the lessor of two evils? I would have to argue for Mill (that is, unless I was one of the 1000 on the island or handicapped) - on a limited basis. I if I, a Bill Gates type rich person, gave a small amount of money to a stranger whom desperately needed it, just to get him to leave me alone, Kant would judge it not moral because I did it for the wrong reason. Mill would examine the consequences of my giving money away. Did it hurt me? No. Did it help the stranger? Yes. Therefore, the net consequence is good. Whether or not I truly felt the act in my heart does not make it any less "good" than the person that gives all his money away to charity because he feels so deeply about it. I also see cons to taking Mill's values on as societal ethics - they could conceivably give rise to the next Hitler. But with Kant, people would be prosecuted for EVERYTHING since there are no extenuating circumstances. Think of the court system - innocent men who had to protect their family and home alongside hardened serial rapists, both receiving the same sentence. In my personal opinion, Kant may go as far as to say to the starving nation "Starve equally." And then, the nation slowly starves equally when they could have killed 1000 people to save themselves. Therefore, in my humble and limited opinion, which is merely based on the limited scope of my perception and that which I draw out of that limited scope, Mill's theories would make a better societal order.

Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.

So which of the two theories would make a b

Some common words found in the essay are:
Universal Law, Immanuel Kant, Happiness Principle, Hitler Kant, Bill Gates, Stuart Mill, Formula Act, Immanuel Kants, Utilitarianism Mill, John Stuart, dictates course, dictates course action, wrong reason, universal law, morally okay, imperative dictates, course action, categorical imperative, question theories, john stuart mill, imperative dictates course, extenuating circumstances, 1000 people,
Approximate Word count = 1169
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)