Please respond to the following with 200 words,Please please make sure you respond to the topic,and subject of the summary. I am not asking you to grade I am asking your opinion about the theory below:

According to the theory of justice as social utility as proposed by John Stuart Mill, this vast income difference is not morally acceptable. This theory, which ties hand-in-hand with the idea of utilitarianism, states that distributive justice is most morally acceptable when it maximizes the general welfare or minimizes harm of the people as a whole. Under this theory, the fact that the majority of the population lives in mediocre and even poor conditions, while a select few enjoy lavish lives as a result of these enormously high incomes, is not morally acceptable. Although their abundance in wealth is not the problem, it is a problem that their wealth is only benefiting the individual. According to justice as social utility, benefits are morally acceptable when they are used to increase the benefits of the most people possible. In the view of John Stuart Mill, some of the income being brought in by the baseball player would be of better use if it were distributed to benefit everyone. Not only would this baseball player's income help aid many people, but the skills of the baseball player himself are not necessarily being used for the good of general welfare. However, the registered nurse is certified to save the lives of many people. A larger investment in the salary of the nurses, or even an effort to employ more, would be morally acceptable under this theory because the presence of nurses tends to benefit much of the population and decrease much of the harm that is so prevalent.