Is this benefiting to the small number of hand!icapped No it is not. However, the greater majority, throws up when they see a handicapped individual, it is beneficial. So, perhaps the right question to as, is, which of the two theories is the lessor of two evils I would have to argue for Mill (that is, unless I was one of the 1000 on the island or handicapped)On a limited basis. I if I, a Bill Gates type rich person, gave a small amount of money to a stranger whom desperately needed it, just to get him to leave me alone, Kant would judge it not moral because I did it for the wrong reason. Mill would examine the consequences of my giving money away.
Did it hurt me No. Did it help the stranger Yes. Therefore, the net consequence is good. Whether or not I truly felt the act in my heart does not make it any less “good” than the person that gives all his money away to charity because he feels so deeply about it.
I also see cons to taking Mill’s values on as societal ethicsThey could conceivably give rise to the next Hitler. But with Kant, people would be prosecuted for EVERYTHING since there are no extenuating circumstances. Think of the court systemInnocent men who had to protect their family and home alongside hardened serial rapists, both receiving the same sentence.

8). Hence, itis just as much of a contradiction to think of God (that is, asupremely perfect being) lacking existence (that is, lackingperfection), as it is to think of a mountain without a valley.His theory is that he cant think of God without it existingand therefore it exists.
Also he gives God all kinds ofperfection and because existence is one of the perfection,God necessarily exists. (Pg. 309).
Kants critique of Anselms and Descartes arguments statethat existence is not a perfection because all perfections arequalities, and existence is not any kind of characteristic,quality, attribute, or property. When we say that somethingexists, Kant argued, we add nothing to our concept ofthat thingWe merely say that there is something similar tothat concept. It follows that no matter how manycharacteristics of a thing we list; we will still not haveanswered the question whether there is something having allthose characteristics.

Second, subcultural variations, arising from potent factors, such as age, gender and socioeconomic class are ignored ( Ho, 1989 cited in Ho 1995 ). More fundamentally, within group individual differences in the extent to which culture is internalized cannot be dealt with. Third, culture is treated as uni-dimensional variable , consequently, the multidimensional variable of cultural process is not taken into account.
As Counselling addresses personal differences, in the framework of cultural and demographic variations, it deals with culture in a broader aspect. In other terms, culture is accepted as a term, which lacks spatial dimensions and it is difficult to be spotted as well as defined.
Cultural awareness is important, but culture should be regarded as a difference rather than an obstacle and assumptions should not be drawn. As culture is a flexible concept which is constantly changing in a broader as well as in a narrower context, it is difficult to define, whether a particular fragment of one’s personality is culturally determined, demographically adopted or just a personal characteristic.REFERENCES:1. Egan G. ( 1998) The Skilled Helper, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company:USA2. Ho Y.H.D. Internalized Culture, Culturocentrism and Transcendence, The Counselling Psychologist, Vol.