One tempting answer is this: we ought to give the caviar to the poor person because he is worse off.
So someone addicted to truffles and caviar could not demand compensation if she characterized the possession of this desire as being something desirable in itself.
Hence, according to utilitarianism, we ought to be indifferent between benefiting the poor person and benefiting the caviar aficionado: either course of action is permissible; neither is obligatory.
Suppose, for example, that we must choose between either giving the caviar to a rich caviar aficionado or giving it to a super-rich caviar junkie.
One can import foie gras and caviar without the surcharge but not drugs to cure people.
I do not know what sort of establishment he knows that sells caviar with a £200 a week turnover.
What was caviar to the general perhaps fifty years ago may now be perfectly acceptable.
I may never use the caviar but the baked beans will come in very handy.
