I agree with Williams that George should take the position even if it means jeopardizing his ethics. Moral behavior, according to utilitarianism, is one that results in the greatest benefits over damage for the individuals impacted. Furthermore, as long as a person's actions yield maximum benefits, the manner by which those benefits were produced, such as manipulation or deception, is irrelevant. George should accept the position because of the good that will result from his activities. George's activities will assist him in earning money for his family, thereby meeting the requirements of children. Moreover, his actions will prevent a fanatic from conducting research on chemical weapons, if misused, could result in adverse outcomes. If George chooses not to take the job because he would be violating his integrity, then his actions will produce less utility; therefore, the maximum benefit people will get will be less.
Additionally, utilitarianism shows how a moral judgment is objectively true. Individuals like George understand that morality is subjective and depends on his sincere beliefs. However, utilitarianism offers an approach that shows the moral beliefs that are true and those which are false. With utilitarianism, every decision regarding the action one takes depend on the foreseeable consequences of the options available. By predicting the amount of good results that George's actions will produce, then it is possible to know the right or wrong morality. In this scenario, the dilemma is whether to take the job on chemical weapons or abide by the moral code, which is against the use of chemical weapons. Based on this scenario, it is easy to tell the best action that will result in a maximum benefit. George will do more good by accepting the job since he will help his family and prevent harm by not allowing an unqualified person to perform the research.
