Sentimentality and Duty

The most intriguing thing that stuck out to me in reading Mill and Kant is when and why morality takes place. For Kant, morality and acting ethically seems to be instantaneous with one's conception of an action; the maxim, a priori, he calls it, before any action takes place. The thought of an action in junction with its end is when morality is defined, not within the action itself or after it is enacted. For Mill, there is morality in the motive of an action, but it's the end result that defines what is and is not moral. This is also confusing as both writers describe the development of morality.

 They agree that morality starts within, but it ultimately becomes a relationship between the individual and all of humanity (or at least those within the same proximity). Still, Kant uses an individual's maxim a priori as the basis of morality to relate to the population at large with his universal law theory. Mill's rough "most happiness for the most people" theory directly jumps into the relationship between people, almost side stepping the internal development (perhaps that's due to our selective reading).

As we perform morally within relation to others, it's worth noting that both Kant and Mill refer to a feeling of obligation. We are compelled to do what's right (through our rationality), while combating our base inclinations (Kant) or instincts (Mill). But why is this? The two writers offer the term "duty" to describe our drive to do right by others. Kant's definition is, again, more self-driven while Mill's is explicitly outside-the-self and more concerned with others. Mills takes a step further and says perfect duties are elements that a person can demand from another like a debt. It sounds as if we all have universal duties to uphold and evoke from others.

But why is this? Because of our universal sentiment of sympathy. It is from this innate ability to sympathize with all human beings (and even non-human beings) that lead us to right action. It's our ability to think outside ourselves and put on another's shoes in the same situation that affects our actions.

Maybe this is just me understanding things improperly. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So my ending question is: knowing all this, which is the better guiding philosophy?

I'd have to answer that Kant gives a more fulfilling direction to follow. As morality begins within us, is completely determined by rationality, and concerns all beings, I'm more compelled by Kant. Mills seems too exacting, too this-worldly, again it may just be the selective reading.