When a person passes away and leaves behind a will, usually everything goes according to the original plan set by the deceased. There could be tension between loved ones over what is being left behind, but a written will establishes who receives what and how much. The dilemma revolving around Ms. Smith 's previous and later will is interesting. The lawyer is left with a tough decision and if they act accordingly to either Kant 's categorical imperative theory or Mill 's utilitarian theory the results will be drastically different either for one person or potentially millions. However, after analyzing, applying and discussing both theories to this situation, the lawyer should find some common middle ground since both of these theories are difficult to agree with as being superior to one another. According to Kant 's categorical imperative theory, the lawyer must proceed with the later will and not the earlier one. This would …show more content…
Although somewhat leaning towards Kant 's categorical imperative theory, it is still poor for this situation to consider it superior to Mill 's utilitarian theory. Only one person will benefit from the fortune while many will suffer. However, this lawyer has two wills and they could just explain to the niece that her aunt had a previous will going to a famine relief fund. There could be a possibility that the niece in honour to her aunt 's previous wishes or her own personal character could donate a portion of the fortune to the relief fund. This would tie in with Kant 's theory because it would respect the niece 's autonomy and rationality which acknowledges her values and beliefs. Plus, in accordance with Mill 's theory, it will also slightly increase happiness in the people affected by the famine. All parties would benefit if both of these theories were considered. The lawyer would still retain their job and reputation, the niece 's rationality would be respected and the people affected by famine will be more fortunate than if