Aristotle's Argument Against Utilitarianism

Everyone has their own moral code to follow. Some are very complex. Some come across as a bit evil. And some are beautifully simple and extremely hard to argue against, such as utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy which seeks to maximize well-being for the largest amount of people. This means that if you can secure pleasure at no moral cost, you should do so.
It also means that if you can prevent displeasure for others without sacrificing anything of equal moral value, you should. In Utilitarianism the key is the well-being for the entire population.
You are an individual in the group, and you certainly do matter, just not more than any one other person. Your actions should promote the most wellbeing across the entire population,
If you were in to Utilitarianism, you would definitely switch tracks. You would feel it better to lose one life than five. On the whole there would be less suffering. If the situation was slightly more complex and instead of being a conductor, you were a bystander. And instead of simply changing tracks, you needed to push a large man onto the tracks in order to stop the trolley and save the five men. If you were truly a follower of

Utilitarianism, you would not hesitate to push the man. The lives of the five people you saved greatly outweigh the life of the large man and the misery of the consequences you may face.
Utilitarianism is very difficult to argue against because it is so simple. Nearly everyone can agree that we should seek wellbeing. And it is not so hard to accept that you should help someone out if you do not need to sacrifice anything of equal or greater moral value. In fact, it is very difficult to not sound like a bit of a jerk when arguing against utilitarianism and yet it is very difficult to follow Utilitarianism in any strict sense. Any money you would like to spend on some frivolous thing for yourself could easily be donated to help save lives elsewhere,