Criticism of Utilitarianism - link

https://www.utilitarian.org/criticisms.html
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/jcanders/ethics/outline_of_some_classic_criticis.htm

Problem: Consider the following two cases:

1. Elderly Aunt Molly is ill. Nephew Tom visits her and helps her because he loves her. Nephew Bob visits her and helps her because he hopes to be rewarded in her will. Nephew Dave visits her and helps her not because he desires to help but because he believes it is his duty. (Modified Version of case by Bowie and Beauchamp, Ethical Theory in Business (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1979) 16-17.

2. A two-year-old is drowning. Ruth flings caution aside because she desires to save the child and jumps in, but she cannot swim. Thus, she fails to save the child. Sue can swim, but is afraid that the child will pull her under. She does not save the child.

The consequences were the same in each case, but the motives of the agents were different. According to utilitarianism, each person's action was of the same value. Shouldn't other features such as an act being motivated by obedience to a law of the state, a religious obligation of loving the neighbor, or a natural love of and concern for others count?

B. Response:

(1) "...the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, though much with the worth of the agent (Mill, "Utilitarianism," Chapter 2 in Solomon and Martin, 322)." Consideration of motives is relevant to judging the worth of persons, but not actions. Utilitarians are "aware that a right action does not necessarily indicate a virtuous character, and that actions which are blameable often proceed from qualities entitled to praise (Mill in Solomon and Martin, 333)." "...in the long run the best proof of a good character is good actions; (Mill in Solomon and Martin, 333)."

(2) Often when motives are used as a standard, what is really involved are emotional reactions of approval of disapproval that vary from person to person or obedience to different understandings of what God or conscience requires. Thus, the same action, when motives are considered, might be judged to be right and wrong at the same place and time as with helping Aunt Molly.

(3) Another problem exists when we transfer our approval of consequences to motives. The same motive in another case, however, might lead to negative consequences as in the example below.

(4) A counter example to the case of Aunt Molly is when the motive is the same, but the consequences differ. Bentham invites us to consider the motive of self-preservation. It leads to bad consequences, if it leads you to kill the only witness to your crime. Good consequences, if it leads you to fight heroically in defense of your country in a noble cause, etc. 

Non repair is immoral. The motivation to not repair because of fear has to do more with the worth of the agent than how immoral it is to not repair.

Killing someone is immoral. killing someone because of money has to do with the with the person worth not the action
Using the motivation as standard confuse us in determining what is the right or wrong action a. it clouds our judgement because we find that people's emotional approval or disapproval varies depending of their circumstances.