Yet doubts may reasonably remain whether utilitarians can wholly rebut the charge that they must, on occasions, approve of sacrifices of individuals in the name of utility which would ordinarily be rejected as unjust.2 No matter how refined their philosophical psychology or their account of what makes lives go well, they may still face difficulty in explaining why, if the utility sums demand it, there should not be interpersonal trading of welfare which goes beyond the limits normally deemed fair. Discussions of utilitarian justice often focus on cases like these:

(C) Some years after the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, strife has broken out again in Verona between the noble houses of Montague and Capulet. One day a member of the Montague clan is stabbed in the back by a masked assassin in Capulet livery. Suspicion falls on a bravo of the Capulet household who is known to have uttered threats against the dead man. The suspect is arrested and interrogated by the Prince; the Montagues demand his immediate beheading in the public square. The Prince, however, having put his prisoner to the question, is convinced of his innocence and refuses to sign the death warrant. This enrages the Montagues, who accuse the Prince of being a Capulet stooge and issue an ultimatum. Either the execution will take place within the hour or they will storm the Prince’s palace, kill the prisoner and anyone else who opposes them. As such behaviour will clearly inflame the Capulets, it is clear that a terrible riot is in prospect, in which many people, innocent as well as guilty, will die. Should the Prince forestall the riot by executing a man he believes to be guiltless?