This had much to do with the work of John Stuart Mill, who was an exceptionally brilliant man rigorously educated by his father. While this hedonistic calculus often translated into a defense of the free market in the minds of many economists of that day, Mill himself did not always argue in this fashion. In fact, John Stuart Mill favored numerous governmental interventions into the economy. For example, he favored the regular redistribution of wealth as a way to achieve a greater equality in society and, presumably, a greater level of happiness. But the very essence of such a position is an implicit denial of the importance of maintaining property rights on traditional moral grounds.
Utilitarianism is, however, wholly inadequate as a basis for developing a moral rule of life.
In fact, the problems of this approach are numerous. As a first flaw in argumentation, this one is fatal. We might think of two children arguing between themselves as to which one of them whould be happier to receive an ice cream cone. The first one says, as a matter of fact, that he would be very happy to have it, while the next child says that he would be infinitely happy to have the ice cream cone as his own. The argument between the two continues, as the first child claims emphatically that he will be infinitely, infinitely happy to receive it.