Does it not? Do we know of a better basis for decision theory? Please tell me what you know.

I have not seen a satisfactory way to compare utilities, and so believe that actually running a utilitarian calculation is an unsolved (and I would suspect unsolvable) problem.

When we are faced with having to punish someone, we want to get out of it. Punishing people sucks.

Why should someone with this view ever be given the position of judge? I would even be leery of entrusting a child to their care for an afternoon, let alone an upbringing.

(I assume that by "want to get out of it" you mean "expected negative total value" not "expected negative short-term value." One who delights in punishment is a brute, but one who shirks from meting out just punishment is infirm.)

The question is whether we can avoid giving the punishment, and still credibly hold the threat of punishment against rational defectors.

No. Next question.