Would it make any sense to say that, since a change in tax policy makes Jorge lose utility while Mary and Demitri gain utility, the policy is good if the loss in Jorge’s utility is less than the combined gain in Mary and Demitri’s utilities? How about the other way around—Jorge’s loss of utility is greater than Mary and Demitri’s combined gain?

In this case, the total utility change in society is positive, as the combined gain in Mary and Demitri's utilities is greater than the loss in Jorge's utility. Therefore, it could be argued that the policy is good, especially if we consider the utilitarian principle, which seeks to maximize the total utility in society.

In this case, the overall change in utility for this group of people is negative, as Jorge's loss of utility is greater than the combined gain in utility for Mary and Demitri. In this situation, it is difficult to argue that the policy is good since the total utility in society has decreased as a result of its implementation. In both cases, it is important to consider other factors and the broader implications of the policy. Utilitarianism has its limitations as a doctrine, and other principles, such as fairness and equity, should also be taken into account when evaluating the desirability of a policy. Thus, a comprehensive analysis of the policy should not solely rely on the consequences on individuals' utilities but also take into consideration the overall impact on society.