Health and Utilitarianism

Health can be defined as the harmonious functioning of all the parts of an Organism.  Accordingly, anything that promotes Health can be called Healthful.  Now, two types of Healthfulness are essential and non-essential--one a necessary condition of continuing to live, the other not, but still conducing to well-being.  For example, food can be essentially Healthful, whereas an artfully prepared meal can be Healthful, but is not a necessary condition of continuing to live.  Other things may be harmful or simply inconsequential.  So, a Utilitarianism could be formulated in terms of these distinctions, i. e. with essentially Healthful the highest value, etc.  But any further quantitative nuance would difficult to gauge, unlike that of the traditional calculus.  A more significant contrast with traditional Utilitarianism is that Pleasure is not taken at face value as irreducibly positive.  For, a localized Pleasure, e. g. of the taste buds, can stimulate un-Healthful behavior, e. g. eating tasty junk food.  Underlying that contrast is a more general one--Health as an Organicist concept vs. Pleasure as a Atomist one--a contrast that traditional Utilitarianism cannot recognize because as Atomist, it is inadequate to Holist concepts.  Likewise, traditional Utilitarianism lacks the capacity to conceive a collective as an Organism, and, hence, to posit general Health, rather than the greatest Happiness of the greatest number, as a collective goal.