By the same logic he kept the market in check so that it wouldn't implode catastrophically, therefore allowing banks to exist and continue their business giving loans to start a business.

The market probably wouldn't have imploded one way or another; just that if it was more stable, the risky earnings would either be smaller, or take longer to materialize. (as before, I'm treading in a sea of assumptions)

But once the market does calm down again, there will be a new Paulson. Perhaps the day this is ever fully prevented is the day that humans become permanently immune to all possible diseases.

Surely; but suppose Paulson didn't do what he did. The capital that didn't go into his fund would have gone into other instruments that produce effects elsewhere (ultimately ending up in some conversion to value somewhere in the chain, big or small). The money made from these other instruments will be used for X purpose. The money lost is simply lost.

Paulson simply sped up the reaction. At the cost of the happiness of others, maybe, but it was still a market inefficiency. There could have been 1000 mini-Paulsons, each making 1000x less, but the net effect, as far as the market is concerned, is the same. It's just very indirect and detached from noble intent (but who knows).

Alas, they're all of the same mold.

"At the cost of the happiness of others"

You cannot consider happiness as part of the equation. People were happy enough to sell financial instruments to Paulson at a profit. Now they are sad because they lost money in that transaction... Why all the complain? Everyone should just learn a lesson in investment from this situation.

If the wealth gain was less sudden, i.e. if it was less conspicuous, people wouldn't complain as much. So the speed is definitely related to the happiness of others, because it's a relative, societal judgment. Furthermore, the one complaining here (the article) was, I believe, a bystander. It's more a reflection on income disparity than quality of life.

But I agree with you.