My Issues With Utilitarianism

From what I understand from this weeks discussion involving the concept of utilitarianism, I have found myself asking several issues regarding the topic. Utilitarianism is defined as accomplishing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. The greatest amount of people part of the definition is not something that can really be argued because it is rather clear but as for the "greatest good" part, I have some questions on this aspecpt.

Who is to say what it "good?"
What if what someone finds good, others do not?

The story of Robin Hood came into my mind because although he was stealing from the rich, he provided plenty for the poor in great numbers.  Some would say that he is wrong for stealing but in my point of view he was more of a hero than a theif.  In this case one must compromise his sense of right and wrong in the way that although he was stealing from a few rich people, he gave a lot for the poor because to them, a little went a long way. In addition to this example, I found the in-class example interesting in the way that the group presenters over utilitarianism had the class deciding whether to save their child from an oncoming train or to save the 50 people on the train; killing the kid.  I asked my mom this question after hearing responses on the discussion and she unhesitantly answered, "my kid." She told me her child would be her priority. I then decided to up the stakes and ask her, "What if there were 1,000 people on the train?" She shook her head and kept her same answer.  It seems as if this rule of utilitarianism doesn't jive with a lot of people. Me being one of them.

Sure this rule comes in handy in some circumstances but it would be nuts to live by this rule all the time.

Ethics

Morality can be defined as what is right and wrong.
It is said to be the basic premise for what we base plenty of our actions on.  It is "above" us whether it is considered by our laws or not.  Of course murder and theft are examples that are considered by our laws but morality is an abstract law, in a sense, that we all live under.

Through reviewing this weeks readings I have examined the six different theories examinging ethics as they explain the different ways of identifying morals and moral beliefs.  I mostly agree with Hume and Rousseau's standpoint on the matter of that morality is essentially a matter of feeling.  We interpret our morals based on our feelings of killing for example.  Regarding this theory I have an adjustment to be made with this perspective.  I believe most, if not all morals are instilled in us, that is, we are born with them.  I understand this is a bold stance to make but I firmly believe this as I allow faith as my backup on this point.  Is it naive of me to think that there is an inherent good in everyone? I do believe we all are born knowing this premise of right and wrong.  Regarding the "tablets of virtue" inscribed by God, the Ten Commandments, I believe they justified not because they are that of a holy authority figure but because they are right.  We are born with that innate conscience. If you want to take the Christianity standpoint on the matter I would say, yes-God created the commandments because they are right. Not, God created them therefore they are right. 

My personal theory on ethics is this: Most, if not all morals are innate.  I believe we are all born knowing what is right and wrong. It is however our decision on what we plan to do with this instilled knowledge and do we listen to our conscious or not.  This principle ties in with the ethics proposed by Artistotle when we said that virtues allow us to "control our feelings and act rationally."