Self-ownership vs utilitarianism

The terrible news that Kerry Katona plans to have her norks disembiggened raises a long-standing conflict in political philosophy - that between self-ownership and utilitarianism.
Self-ownership says Kerry should go ahead - it's her body to do as she wants with.
Utilitarianism says she should be stopped; the greatest happiness of the greatest number requires that her curves be kept. If they can slap preservation orders on trees, they should do the same for Kerry's norks.
There's a parallel here with policy towards obesity. Self-ownership says individuals have a right to become lard-buckets. Utilitarianism - the costs to the NHS and the ugliness of our streets - requires that they be constrained from doing so.
So, here's my question. How can government ministers, consistently, worry about obesity whilst staying silent on the issue of Kerry's norks? Surely, the same issue - the priority of utilitarianism over self-ownership - arises in both cases.
It's time for Alan Johnson to speak up, and speak for England.

Comments

[reason]

Who is Kelly Katona?

(And I am making a serious point, I travel on public transport! Work that one out!)

[Mark Wadsworth]

What she needs is a push-up bra, in which she looks absolutely super. Win-win.

[Chris Williams]

I think that they're grotesque right now - so does my preference make a difference? I'm not promising to look at pictures of her if she makes them kind of average-to-large, though.

[Matt Munro]

A little on the large side for my taste, and she is a bit too northern generally.

[Alison]

I think your female RSS subscribers have now taken this opportunity to unsubscribe.

[chris strange]

Is there really a conflict here? Isn't this apparent problem just outsiders to the decision having incomplete information compared to those directly involved.

The marginal utility for ogling giant norks will at some point have provided a greater utility than putting up with chronic back ache from wearing them. The marginal utility for ogling giant norks can, and has, been aggregated together by the market and Ms Katona knows this through her is remunerated for having them. But the utility lost due to back ache is unknown to anybody but her. Therefore Ms Katona is the only person capable of weighting both the factors in play here and coming to a rational decision.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Agreed, we don't want the poor lass to have back ache, but can't she just replace the silicone with small helium balloons or something? Like I say, win-win.

[reason]

I'm wondering if my point was too cryptic or too obvious.

Tip, the scale (no pun intended) of the effect matters. You are trying to make a matter of principle out of something that should be a matter of degree (cost/benefit).

[dizzy]

this news is tragic

[rockinred]

Brilliant! Splendidly graphic illustration of usually abstruse concepts. But 'norks'? New to me (but I don't get out much here...)

[Simon Clark]

If Kerry keeping her nockers as is created more net hapiness than having them reduced, wouldn't there be the financial incentive for her to keep them?

Of course, this does weight things in favour of the rich somewhat, but government decisions are certainly no more accurate a measure of utility.

[Jeremy Poynton]

disembiggened? I think you mean debigulated?

[anonymous]

Alan Johnsons ownership, or speaking out about?
Comparisons of public vs private rights/utility?
Equivalence of thousands of hospital deaths from cdff, etc, (and they are the ones we know about?), with incessant bleating about overweight, alcohol units, fat, sugar, salt.
Exactly what does he carry between the ears?

[Roger Thornhill]

I think she should go to Iceland.

[bayleys]

I agree with the Utilitarian principle - happier people should technically equal a more industrious work force, keep her boobs and the economy afloat.