Emotions and Utilitarianism

My view on utilitarianism is that one has to be removed from the situation emotionally to be able to actually use the felicific calculus correctly. For instance, what happens if there is a burning building and I could see my father behind one window and a scientist with the cure for cancer behind another window, and I can only save one? Utilitarianism states that it is for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for the greatest amount of people. That being said, utilitarianism goes completely against human nature. Surely human nature in this situation, at least for me, would be to save my father. I would be emotionally involved in the situation and that would disrupt my use of the felicific calculus. However, if the hero in this situation did not know my father and it was simply two strangers (one with the cure of cancer), of course the hero would save the scientist because they have no direct emotional investment in the situation. This hero would be able to correctly use the utilitarian calculus. Another example is that say I am the President of the United States and I have to choose whether to save the city of Memphis or the city of Atlanta from a bombing. I am the President, therefore I am required to choose what is the best for this country. Say that for some reason saving Atlanta, Georgia would greater benefit our country, I probably would not be able to choose that option since my entire family lives in Memphis. I would not be qualified to make this decision because of my emotional involvement. I would not be able to apply a utilitarian approach because my feelings would affect my decision. In conclusion, utilitarianism is relative to each person given the situation. If the choice was either Atlanta or Nashville, I would be able to correctly use the calculus and make the best decision for our country.