I know that utilitarianism does not take time into account when determining which course of action provides the most utility.
Going to a classic utilitarian example, if I kill one person now to save 10 people a year from now, that's no different from killing one person now to save 10 people now (in a vacuum, of course).
However, I'm having some trouble making sense of that. Specifically, I don't understand a temporary condition would affect utility.
For example, lets say I get a cut. It's not debilitating and it doesn't have any lasting effects, but it hurt like hell to get. In a week or two the cut heals. There's no scar, no effects; it's like the cut never happened. In other words, from that point in time onward, there is no difference in my utility for having been cut.
Does utilitarianism really weigh these outcomes (being cut or not) as equal?
It seems pretty obvious to me that being hurt would be treated as a negative, so I assume I either understand wrong, or utilitarianism simply isn't the correct tool for this example.