A) J. S. Mill claims that what makes our action right or wrong is the amount of pleasure and pain our action brings about. If we do what generates the most pleasure sum-total we do what is right. Assuming we accept that all that matters for our happiness is the amount of pleasure we have, why does Mill state that unsatisfied Socrates (in terms of pleasures) is still better off than a satisfied fool?
B) Kant claims that protecting your own life is a duty-toward-oneself (moral obligation) each of us has. But Kant seems to think that when you run away from a danger out of your inborn instinct to protect your life, you do not act out of duty to protect your life (you act out of instinct). Therefore, protecting your life out of instinct does not have any moral content.
Why would Kant think that protecting your life out of instinct does not count as a fulfillment of your moral obligation to protect your life (what is the difference between acting out of duty and acting out of instinct)?