I hate utilitarianism – insofar as it is used as a theory of justice. But that’s not to say that we shouldn’t aim for “the greatest good for the greatest number,” albeit, tempered with personal responsibility and as much freedom as possible. But Social Utility theory is often invoked as justification for depriving some in favor of others – redistributionism, if you will.

One of the problems I have is how frequently social utilitarians are to discard their mantra when it is no longer convenient.

For example: Wal-Mart arguably “puts the mom & pops out of business.” OK. So what? They employ 1.8 million people. Which is probably 1.7 million people more than the mom & pops. Some, if not many (or most) of these people would otherwise be unemployed, or employed in a less profitable line of work. That they choose to work at Wal-mart suggests that they prefer it to whatever else might be available to them.

Clearly, Wal-Mart is a case of “the greatest good for the greatest number.” And clearly, it is not a case of forceful redistribution, but rather the result of freedom: choice, association, employ, etc. In doing so, some people might suffer, but many others are raised to a level previously unattainable to them.

Inconsistencies cannot exist; when one appears to exist, double-check your premises, you’ll find one of them is wrong. If you cannot apply your theory with consistency, perhaps it’s time to find another one?