This article criticizes the utilitarian understanding of the moral agent as a rational atom invariably willing to act in accord with non-suffering. My hypothesis is that utilitarianism drains human beings of their motivations in order to offer an opaque view of the moral agent. Utilitarianism is therefore incapable of solving moral dilemmas that involve, on one hand, self-sacrifice for affective reasons and, on the other hand, conflicts where distinct cultures oppose each other. The point here is that it is not necessarily immoral for an agent to sacrifice an optimal solution (as proposed by the majority-favoring utilitarian calculation) in favor of an affective motivation which judges that one life may be worth more than another. Furthermore, suffering is not necessarily immoral in the same way in all cultures.
Moral; Utilitarianism; Good; Context; Empathy