Kant, Mill, and Peanut Allergies

     According to Kant, an action is determined if its morally good depending on the motive itself and completely disregarding the consequences. Right or wrong is based simply on what an individual intended for it to be when he acted upon it. However, Mill takes a different approach to moral good, and possibly less selfish. Mill believes that what determines if an action is right or wrong is the greatest amount of happiness it causes for the greatest number of people. Basically, a morally good action seeks to bring about happiness to as many people as possible, rather than being satisfied with its good intentions alone. For example, if I give my best friend a peanut butter sandwich to make her day, but she's deathly allergic to peanut (assuming she didn't notice what she was biting into) and ends up dying, Kant with still consider your action morally good because of its intention, whereas Mill would argue that the action was wrong, because it didn't end up bringing happiness to anyone. At least, that's how I understand it.