Kant maintains that “the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect
expected from it” (401) but in the fact that it is motivated by respect for the moral law.
Mill, on the other hand, implicitly endorses consequentialism (the claim that what makes
actions good is the goodness of their consequences) and maintains that “the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, though much with the worth of the agent” (20).
Explain how Kant uses the example of an honest shopkeeper to develop an
argument for his position, and precisely identify the premises and the conclusion of this argument. Which view (if either) do you agree with? Why? If you disagree with Kant,
give specific reasons why his argument about the shopkeeper is unsound. If you disagree
with Mill, explain why you think consequentialism has to be false.