[gs17]

> Meanwhile the utility of the mugger's finger is questionable. The pain of losing the finger is the only real cost. If they are just a petty criminal, the loss of their finger will probably reduce their ability to commit crimes and prevent him from inflicting as much suffering on others as he otherwise would have. Maybe losing his finger actually increases utility.

Yes, the mugger removing his own finger, in Bentham's words, would "prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness", assuming the mugger is going to continue a life of crime where fingers help him. If the mugger was a pediatric surgeon who was performing a one-time theft (and we can trust him to never do it again) to get some quick cash on his way to work it might work. It doesn't resolve what the money was originally for, but at least that finger could be as important as your medicine.

[ertgbnm]

Yeah, but now we are in rather hilarious territory. Act Utilitarians can be taken advantage of by deontologist pediatric surgeons, but only once per surgeon per utilitarian. Much less of a gotcha than the original formulation of Bentham's Mugging.