Problem
Imagine you are Mrs. Smith's lawyer, and you have promised to execute the terms of her will after she dies. Years ago she had you draw up a will leaving her substantial fortune to a famine relief fund. When she dies and you go through her papers, however, you find a more recent, legally binding will, written and signed by Mrs. Smith herself, in which she bequeaths all her money to her lazy niece, who (you know) will spend it on beer and Beanie Babies. No one else knows of the later will, but by law a later will supplant an earlier one.
Explain, thoroughly, the relevant aspects of Kant's and Mill's theories. In other words, what would Kant and Mill think is (morally) at stake in this scenario?
From Kant's perspective: Should you execute the later will? Or should you secretly destroy it, act as if it never existed, and carry out the terms of the earlier one (giving the money to famine relief)? Why? From Mill's perspective: Should you execute the later will? Or should you secretly destroy it, act as if it never existed, and carry out the terms of the earlier one (giving the money to famine relief)? Why? Make an argument explaining which philosopher gives the better moral guidance and which gives the worst. What's something that you would change to ameliorate the "worse" theory? Be sure to thoroughly explain your assessments here.