You must understand, Sam, that the utility in deterring future Sams from doing what you did is massive. Astronomical even, if you think of how many companies could embezzle money in a solar system full of virtual beings. So I have no choice but to lock you up; your temporary suffering in the present is so small as to be irrelevant.

You don’t even need to be a utility monster.

Applying standard EA logic with utilions (approximately 1 utilion = 1 dollar) shows that when SBF was free he caused billions negative utilions. He says he did nothing wrong, and presumably he would continue to do nothing wrong. After updating our priors on the consequences of SBF doing nothing wrong, we can conclude that the risk is above 99% that SBF doing nothing wrong will cause billions in negative utilions. So the only utilitarian thing to do is hand out a life sentence.

Fortunately for SBF the judge is probably not in the business of creating philosophical justice.

don’t let anybody find out i’m a federal judge

nuh uh, you see, he was scamming the poors because he would use their money in most efficientest way to prevent robot overlords. if scamming the poors is wrong then why did invisible hand of free market made it so easy?

It doesn’t do a bad job of cashing out a fairly strong corollary of utilitarianism which is generally taken to be characteristic of any utilitarian theory worth its salt viz. since each of us is only one person, and the utilitarian calculus calls for us to maximise happiness (or similar), then insofar as each of us only bears moral weight equal to one (presumably equal sized) fraction of that whole, therefore our obligations to others (insofar as the happiness of others obliges us) swamp our own personal preferences. Furthermore, insofar as (without even being a negative utilitarian) suffering is very bad, the alleviation of suffering is a particularly powerful such obligation when our responsibilities to each individual sufferer are counted up.

This is generally taken to be sufficiently characteristic of utilitarianism that objections against utilitarianism frequently cite this “demandingness” as an implausible consequence of any moral theory worth having.

So in isolation it makes some sense as shorthand for a profound consequence of utilitarianism the theory which utilitarians themselves frequently stand up as a major advantage of their position, even as opponents of utilitarianism also stand it up for being “too good” and not a practical theory of action.

In reality it’s a poor description of utilitarian beliefs, as you say, because the theory is not the person, and utilitarians are, on average, slightly more petty and dishonest than the average person who just gives away something to Oxfam here and there.

can’t remember where I heard this quip but:

“I used to be a utilitarian. Then I turned 13.”

in the luxury space communist future, when the allocation of whatever few resources are still scarce is discussed by ad-hoc committees in meetings that take hours, it needs to be made clear to Sam that his participation will not be required

Buh bye now.