> Utilitarian theory is embarrassed by the possibility of utility monsters who get enormously greater sums of utility from any sacrifice of others than these others lose ... the theory seems to require that we all be sacrificed in the monster's maw, in order to increase total utility

Billionaires, who have more than they could ever possibly spend.

Any sane utility function would not just use money as the optimizing variable considering that one person can (indeed) hoard billions of it, besides not being able to spend it on pleasure or whatever.

I don’t personally care for Utilitarianism. But these counter-arguments are not convincing considering they are so hypothetical. They are just about gaming an algorithm. Or gaming a definition, if you will.

Billionaires were born by capitalism, which accompanying philosohy is political liberalism. Utilitarianism is not central to political liberalism. Interestingly that quote from Wikipedia is from Nozick, one of the few academic philosophers to advocate for Libertarianism.

> sane

No true Scotsman

but wealth isn't redistributed to billionaires on utilitarian grounds.