The utilitarian approach suggests that the moral action is the one which maximizes total pleasure while minimizing total pain. In this way, one could argue that a judge should convict the accused if it would result in greater overall pleasure for society; however this notion raises numerous ethical questions surrounding how such decisions are made and what happens when laws don’t take account of unforeseen consequences.

To begin with, who ultimately decides what qualifies as “pleasure-inducing”? Does it solely come down to personal opinion or can be there other factors taken into consideration? Such questions become even more complicated when we consider potential exceptions to usual legal standards – like punishing someone less harshly due to their age or circumstances – as these types of scenarios might require different approaches than traditional ones.

Moreover making an exception also means disregarding certain fundamental principles of justice: In order to maintain trust between citizens and law enforcement agencies, courts must uphold predetermined mandates no matter extenuating circumstances. Allowing any type of bias risk undermining people’s faith system leading them to engage more in illegal activities out of fear reprisal (Hegel, 1988).

Ultimately utilizing utilitarianism as a basis for judgment not only is dangerous but potentially unethical as well. While the idea of increasing total net benefit may sound appealing on surface, its application is much harder than anticipated since it is hard to determine appropriate course of action without sufficient data available; in addition, it should always prioritize in maintaining integrity in judicial processes over achieving outcomes regardless of situation at hand . Only then will we able to truly create fair playing field for everyone involved.