Although this may be a simple explanation of the scenario, other factors must be taken into account, such as the scientists 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 agents own happiness, but that of all concerned. (Boss, 55) Looking further into utilitarianism, there is still room to take the persons 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 agents 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 the good of the masses, in fact, they were to destroy the masses. This alone would require punishment to the agent (scientist). Although punishment is consider pain, which goes against the utilitarian viewpoint, punishing the malicious intent on the masses would ultimately bring pleasure to society as a whole.
There is no guarantee that the scientist will not again act maliciously, to correct what mistake was made with the first intent. His thoughts and acts are not for the good of society, but he would rather see it destroyed. .. So that not only he may be unable to conceive the possibility of happiness to himself, consistently with conduct opposed to the general good, but also that a direct impulse to promote the general good may be in every individual¦ (Boss, 55) So therefore, to protect the general population he would need to be punished, to see to it that he may not cause pain to society.
To not punish the scientist would be assuming that he did a good deed and intentionally caused pleasure to society. When in fact he did not have the intent to do any of these things, he merely made a mistake that happen to benefit society. In reality, he is a bad and malicious person who does not have societys interest in mind, but rather the destruction of it.