It seems to me that the utility Monster argument has a critical flaw in that it actually does a great job of describing the way we distribute utility in reality

It seems to me that the utility Monster argument has a critical flaw in that it actually does a great job of describing the way we distribute utility in reality. We can't properly rationalise with a being that derives 100 times more utility than humans any better than we can imagine a fourth spatial dimension, so instead, let's go in the other direction. What if humans were the beings that derived 100 times the utility? Would we be then be able to justify consuming 100 times the resources? Well, we can and we do. Case and point, literally any other animal. That leaves a choice: either one accepts that being a utility monster is actually ok, or refrains from causing harm to any conscious being, human or otherwise.