The utilitarian position - that Government dictation is bad because no rational ethics exists, and therefore no person has a right to impose his arbitrary values on someone else - is, we believe, an inadequate one. In the first place, it will not convince those who believe in a rational ethics, who believe that there is a scientific basis for moral judgements and that they are not pure whim. And furthermore, the position involves a hidden moral assumption of its own - that A has no right to impose any arbitrary values on B. But if ends are arbitrary, is not the end "that arbitrary whims not be imposed by coercion" just as arbitrary?
And suppose, further, that ranking high on A's value scale is the arbitrary whims of imposing his other values on B. Then the Utilitarians cannot object and must abandon their attempt to defend individual liberty in a value-free manner. In fact, the Utilitarians are helpless against the man who wants to impose his values by coercion and who persists in doing so even after the various economic consequences are pointed out to him.