Utilitarianism

Given the scenario of the mad scientist, a utilitarian approach would suggest that because the outcome of the biochemical produced a cure causing thousands of lives to be saved, then this may make him a good person. The result of this biochemical produced happiness for the masses by saving lives and curing disease. Considering the principle of utilitarianism is pleasure of the masses, the result of his actions would now be considered moral due to the amount of happiness that was produced. Although this may be a simple explanation of the scenario, other factors must be taken into account, such as the scientist’s intent, the lack of pleasure that the scientist received, and the pleasure of the masses for punishing malicious behavior. “…the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent’s own happiness, but that of all concerned.” (Boss, 55)
Looking further into utilitarianism, there is still room to take the person’s intent into consideration. Since the scientist had malicious intentions, by killing mass quantities of people, then he would be considered immoral. If you solely looked at if the scientist received pleasure or not, than you would also be able to determine that he was immoral. Due to the results of his intent, he did not succeed which in in turn caused him pain rather than pleasure. The claims of utilitarianism would say that he acted immorally in regard to the pain that he caused himself. His intent was also to inflict pain on the mass of society, rather than cause them pleasure. As stated earlier the intent must not be necessarily in the agent’s own happiness, but the happiness of all concerned. “To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbor as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.” (Boss, 55)
According to the laws of utilitarianism, the scientist should be punish for his actions, even though they resulted in good or pleasure. His intentions were not keeping with what is for