Utilitarianism keeps failing when we apply it to real moral dilemmas because we can never predict all consequences with certainty. I remember a hospital ethics board discussion where a cost-benefit analysis suggested allocating the single ventilator to a younger patient, yet the nurses argued for the older one based on years of saved life vs. potential for future contributions—the numbers didn't resolve the disagreement. We treat pleasure and pain as if they're measurable, but they're subjective across individuals and cultures. Maybe the greatest happiness principle is just a comfortable illusion that gives us a pseudo-rational way to dodge genuine ethical reflection. Can we really justify a moral system built on such shaky empirical foundations?