e., it removes subjectivity as a vantage point). It is also hard to tell how much unhappiness is created and how to weigh it against the happiness that is created (e.g., how much George would hate his job?, how much suffering will the warmonger go through because he did not get this job?). Further, quantification of happiness or suffering becomes a real issue when trying to determine things on a macro scale. For example, does the tiniest amount of world happiness outweigh a huge amount of individual suffering? How much world happiness is necessary if not? Second, utilitarianism relies on the outcomes of the actions in order to determine morality. If war breaks out and all of the United States is whipped out because George begrudgingly did his job, dragging his feet the whole time, then his action to take the job was wrong. He would have caused the devastation of many people when the warmonger could have saved a lot of lives by having the weapons ready that were needed to stop the war before the U.S. (and world) suffered so many casualties. In order to determine the appropriate action, then, one must basically be omnipotent, knowing all the circumstances and future outcomes. For example, George knows little about the other man except that he would push the research along. His view of this would-be action is colored by his own feelings about chemical and biological warfare. George does not know that by taking this job, the other man may kill himself in despair...

He does not even know if the other man has the same view of war as he does (and would do a better job at preventing it).
Therefore, while utilitarianism would suggest that George take the job, much of that determination is unclear. It would seem that actions should not be, then, judged by the outcomes, but rather by the intent. If George takes this job for reasons that a normal, rational person would (e.g., to help his wife and kids, to build a better friendship with the older chemist), then his actions would be right, regardless of the outcomes (of which he has little control). Further, it might even be argued that his taking the job, knowing that he would not do the job to the best of his ability, he would be committing a wrong act. He would, in a way, be cheating the company out of valuable time and money. If he took the job and decided he would do a good job (because he wanted to get promoted, make more money, etc.), then he can be said to have done the right thing (and the company that employs him can be the bearer of moral responsibility for the creation and use of chemical and biological warfare). After all, it hardly seems fair, for example, to hold the university that educated George responsible for his taking the job. By using intent, rather than outcome, one is not as wound up in the moral responsibilities of others or unintended consequences.