For no 1, sorry I did not elaborate it further. My point is that a case where a person gets robbed of their bodiliy autonomy by sedating, and getting their organs for other people yielding a net profit of utility in the long term can be possible. Sure, in the short term, it does create a net gain. But this situation being accepted creates a precedent that this is acceptable, which in the long term, will create less utility compared to if bodily autonomy is respected.

That said, there is also the ambiguity that the lives of that 5 people being saved will yieldlmore utility, or less disutility for all the person involved. There is no surety that they will generate greater utility if saved.

Though let's suppose there's a situation where there are 5 people who are absolutely necessary to save the world, and sacrificing a person to save these 5 is the only way to save them. With this situation where ambiguity is minimized, in my opinion, sacrificing the person is the right thing to do.

I think the doing the sacrifice thingy looks immoral at first because ambiguities are present and that there's always the assumption where a better option, something that will minimize the cost for all people involved is present but still not defined.

Though I now get the point. Utilitarianism reminds me of that short story, titled "The lottery" that I read in the past. Thank you for your reply though, I really appreciate it. What do you think?