system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I am a pretty committed utilitarian, roast me please? (Sharpens the mind)

So I am one of those Peter Singer acolytes that many of you probably love to hate. I may be different on a fair number of points from a traditional utilitarian, but when you get right down to it I'm a consequentialist egalitarian, or try to be. I feel very committed to these moral ideas (egalitarianism especially), but I am even more committed to the idea of self-trial. 

So I would like you all to tell me why I am wrong and what is wrong with my positions (be nice though please.. understand that this is my real moral code and is therefore emotionally relevant to me as well as intellectually relevant), if not to convince me then to hone my positions and make me more honest and accurate in my morality. Morality is, to my mind, the most important thing a person can attempt to master. So please do help me out, I welcome your input.

Lastly, if this is somehow inappropriate to the conventions of this subreddit, just ignore me. I don't wish to spam anyone. 

EDIT: Friday afternoon. Hey everyone I'm glad to see there's been a response. I got back to a few of you but I want to get back to you all. I've barely slept the last two days so give me a few days and I hope to get back to you all soon. Thank you so much for your thoughtful and kind criticisms!
gpt
Uh, let's see. Some of the common ones are:

Transitivity of preferences: Is there some number of mild headaches such that it would be better to kill someone than to let that number of people suffer headaches. The utility calculus might say that #H > 1L, but a lot of people think that this is counterintuitive to the point of being morally wrong. So they'll deny transitivity and give up utilitarianism.

Another objection is the surgeon case. If a surgeon has five sick people in need of organs and notices one perfectly healthy man in the lobby who happens to have all the organs the surgeon needs, the surgeon should kill this man and take his organs to save the other five. The usual utilitarian response to this is to say that such an act would undermine the trust in doctors and so result in a net loss, but as Judith Thompson (I think) says, we surely don't think it would wrong to kill the healthy man *because* we're worried about undermining trust in doctors.