Objecting to Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which argues, in its most general form, that a person is morally obligated to perform that action which maximizes overall utility, which, depending on what time of utilitarian you are, can be happiness, preference satisfaction, or whatever (happiness being the most common consideration). Consequently, utilitarians tend to believe that you are morally obligated to do that which maximizes the total amount of happiness. The most famous modern-day utilitarian is Peter Singer (he of the Animal Liberation fame), who just so happens to be a professor at my alma mater.

The theory seems pretty straight forward, and I think it has quite a bit of intuitive pull: a good deal of people will say unreflectively that what we're obligated to do is just that which causes the best outcome. Don't know whether or not to choose vanilla or chocolate ice cream? Pick the one that makes you happiest. What makes stealing wrong? It causes serious disruptions in the lives not only of the victims, but of society in general. After all, what would our country look like if everyone just took by force whatever they wanted?

There are quite a bit of objections to utilitarianism, generally focusing on some examples which, if you apply a utilitarian principle, lead you to some awfully weird conclusions. But instead I want to focus on the problem utilitarianism poses to the concept of friendship:

Every time I have a choice in how to act, there will be one action which maximizes the greatest amount of happiness, and according to utilitarianism, I am morally obligated to to perform that act. And if that's the case, then I am always required to do something, no matter what the situation.

With me so far? Okay.

Consider what it means to be friends with other people: you spend more time with them than you would a stranger; you do favors and help them out in a way you wouldn't do for others; their concerns matter much more to you than other peoples'. Utilitarianism, remember, always requires you to do some specific action. But wouldn't you better maximize happiness if you spent that Saturday afternoon tutoring underprivileged children instead of watching a movie with your pal? Or worked an extra shift to earn money to donate to Oxfam instead of consoling that buddy who just lost his job? If you buy into utilitarianism, there doesn't seem to be much of anything you could do that could constitute friendship. And so, it seems, the utilitarian has to give up on the idea of having meaningful relationships with other human beings, always obligated to sacrifice her own happiness for the greater good.

That, for me at least, is sufficient to say, Sorry, Jeremy Bentham, but you're nuts. No moral theory can seriously require I give up any human relationship. But that's just me.