Utilitarianism and Merit

I believe the best defensible version of utilitarianism is one that includes a well defined merit system (desert). In addition to the principle that we are morally obligated to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, I believe that this should preferentially go to those who deserve it. How good we are at upholding the first principle would then in turn determine how much preference we deserve in the second. The preference would take the form of a heavier weight being given towards the pleasure and pain of those who deserve it more. For example, suppose a humanitarian worker and murderer were under similar suffering, under this type of utilitarianism, we would favor the humanitarian worker because they deserve it more. However, this weight would be relative to the magnitude of the pleasure or suffering being measured, and simply gives it an added weight, not immediate priority. So again if a humanitarian worker had a slight migraine and thief had his arm severed the chopped off arm still would include more suffering. If the wrongdoer were a murderer however, they would deserve less (relative to the pain they caused) and there perhaps the migraine would be worth more. However this is an individual basis and ideally we would be helping the humanitarians with greater suffering than lesser pains.

One may argue that this system is not equal, as it assigns an arbitrary added weight to someone's suffering simply because they are perceived as good. First, the strength of this weight can be adjusted based on major opinion and need not be static. Also, I would argue that it is equal because it makes no sense to let the Mother Teresas of the world suffer while a Nazi SS officer does not. Of course, we could consider the situation where both are happy, and as an after thought, let the Nazi SS officer be placed in prison so he cannot cause more harm. This world is certainly ideal, but it gives no incentive for people to continue to maximize pleasure or minimize pain. In fact, the only punishment for hurting others seems to be being sent to jail, and in this ideal world, would not affect our well-being because we would still be happy. Following a merit system would ensure that a greater variety of people then become Mother Teresas, because they would be guaranteed more pleasure (happiness).

Someone might then ask, would not this simply create a system where people "suck up" to the system to get what they want? This is true, many people doing good deeds would simply do them for selfish reasons, rather than because they actually want to help others. However, would the truth value of this statement actually matter? Regardless of their intentions, more good is being done in the world, in turn increasing global happiness and lowering suffering. And if others then join the bandwagon to receive the benefits, this would simply create a snowball effect of people doing good deeds. The intention behind each action is meaningless, because it has no effect on the outcome, which is increased happiness.

The reason I find the merit system the most defensible version of utilitarianism is because I believe it avoids the awkward moments where we are forced to defend situations where doing good may seem bad. Consider the situation where someone considered useless to society, perhaps a homeless person, is a perfect organ donor match for multiple people. Normally under utilitarianism we would be forced to say that since we would be saving multiple people for the sacrifice of one (useless) person this would be the "good" thing to do. However a merit system would prevent this from happening because short of committing murder, the homeless person would not deserve being used for organs. On the opposite scale, we could consider a situation where the ones receiving the organs would be Mother Teresas, and there we would seemingly be forced to give them the organs. However as stated above the added weight of the pleasure and pain can be changed, so we could change it so that the homeless man (who did nothing wrong) would also receive a weight because we could consider him a blank slate. This would also help out others who have done nothing wrong but are not Mother Teresas (such as infants or invalids) from some injustice they do not deserve.