Examples Of Monetized Utilitarianism

How is the lottery an example of the utilitarian monster?

Answer: the article mentions that the lottery is controlled by the State, meaning that a few people in charge makes a lot of money out of millions of people, and because gambling is a somewhat a form of "entertainment" and one individual might win and get a lot money (pleasure) from it, it supposedly outweighs the harm of these other million of individuals that gave their money away and lost. Nevertheless, in utilitarian monster logic, an experiment create by Robert Nozick, the intensified pleasure of one individual is more important than the small harm caused to others. The comic picture below by Peter Singer, paints a more vivid image of what the utilitarian monsters looks like:

Don't worry, I did the math. The amount of pleasure I got from writing this terrible joke outweighs the suffering it caused from people having to read it.

Figure 1: Comic example of Utilitarian monster by Philosopher Peter Singer in ExistentialComics.com

How can you set yourself up to argue in favor of or against the ethical existence of the lottery in terms of monetized utilitarianism?

I would argue against lottery, one because I really do not understand the pleasure of gambling at all, but most because it seems to me, that out of millions of people, only one or a couple few might really get happy and although monetized utilitarianism measures pleasure in terms of money, there will be a lot of unhappy and disappointed individuals out of their money or at least have lost all the money they put into it, not to say that as the Telegraph describes, "the chance of winning the National Lottery jackpot is 1 in 13,983,816 (or approximately 1 in 14 million)" (the Telegraph, 2017), meaning that there is a lot people not benefiting from monetized