Liberty Vs Utilitarianism

The utilitarian makes decisions based off of maximizing happiness and well-being of individuals and society above all else. In theory, maximizing happiness and well-being seem favorable, but it is actually not. There are many who find utility to be synonymous to economics, but they are mistaken due to different definitions of the word. There is an ethical dilemma within utilitarianism because it leads ethical decisions to be made through utility calculations. This calculation differs between people and groups making morality subjective within this framework. A better alternative framework for an economist is a focus on a market based economy where truth is inherent. Utilitarianism also limits liberty and makes it plausible for mass killings
A system that champions liberty would be superior in that the people's rights are not being limited in any way. Utilitarianism limits liberty. Rothbard (2007) discusses how liberty is limited within economics when the framework is utilitarian. The utilitarian wants to provide happiness and well-being for the greatest number of individuals and society at large. Well what if an individual convinces a group of individuals that it is necessary for a certain part of society to be killed? This scenario could be probable within a utilitarian framework because people could argue that society and the greatest number of individuals would be happier and well-off if a certain group were gone. The greater happiness and well-being could outnumber the loss of the people, like Hitler believed about the Jews and convinced millions to believe as well. Being able to allow the liberty of a certain group of people to be sacrificed for others or society at large to have increased happiness and well-being is unjust and should not be a framework for an economist. Who is to decide that the loss of those people is proportionally less than the happiness gained? Human life is not easy to empirically measure. The Holocaust is a good reminder that this extreme case of limit to liberty can be justified by some people. An economists should not use a utilitarian framework and not
For the example above, Hodder would argue that the people who are killing a certain group of people will be held responsible for the immoral act by those who are around them. Societal pressure will keep mass killings at bay, but I would argue that society does not always do what is right. The utilitarian does not believe that the actor needs to believe or have knowledge of right or wrong, but that everyone has a responsibility to hold each other accountable for when they do things that cause others unhappiness, like killing others. Hodder's explanation seems to follow more in line with market forces reacting to injustice. The utilitarian economist would have to consider the goodness and well-being of those who dislike the certain group of people and consider that fact in their calculations. The market based economist and society would act upon the fact that mass killings are wrong, and they do not have to consider, as part of the framework, the effect of getting rid of human life on people that hate those particular humans. An economist should not use a framework in their analysis in which mass killings are