The vast majority of people are evil.
This is because they do not believe in the truth, and are therefore incapable of leading upright, moral lives. What they think is morality is immorality. What they were taught was good is evil.
Obama was right when he criticized the GOP, Romney, and Paul Ryan as being a bunch of social darwinists. Republicans really do believe that people should sink or swim economically and however the economy falls out for each individual, that's somehow a good thing. Republicans want to take away all public benefits for everyone, no matter how deserving, even if they paid in to programs like medicare and social security for decades. This is because, basically, the libertarian wing of the Republican party believes in the evil principle of selfishness and the idea that survival of the fittest also somehow means survival of the best.
Utilitarianism doesn't care who is benefiting, it is an objective moral standard that cares about each individual equally, whether they are you, or someone else, whether they are like you or different from you. Any non-objective morality is on its face ridiculous. It's arbitrary and illogical to assume that just because it benefits you, it is good in some abstract sense. It is equally illogical to assert there is no such thing as good or evil, and therefore you're justified in applying whatever moral code suits you best -- because if there's no such thing as good or evil, why would you want to suit yourself best? Once you establish that your desires are what lead you to seek your own betterment, then you must admit that other people's desires are doing the same inside their heads, and then there's no fundamental difference why yours should take priority over theirs. You have given no metric, no standard, by which you alone should be given a special privilege.
Your value is not subjective, it's not because you love yourself. We can assume most other people love themselves just as much. It must be objective. You cannot value yourself more than anyone else, unless you actually are more valuable than them. For instance, if you're more intelligent than them, or better looking, possess some rare talent, make more people happy, and so on. Basically, if your utility is higher than theirs. Libertarianism makes no sense because it just takes as a given that people should value themselves more highly than anyone else.
Because their genes for self-preservation say so? But that's substituting reason for instincts, it's turning a human into an animal.
Libertarians assert they shouldn't belong to anyone else. But why? If there is utility in enslaving one portion of the world to serve the other, then that's naturally what should be done. Why would we accept a random premise like 'people are born free and should serve only themselves throughout life?' Where did that come from? On what moral foundation can such a conclusion arise?
Compare the random, arbitrary moral planks of 'freedom' to the reasonable, self-evident conclusions of utilitarianism.
"It is moral that I do whatever I want, but I'm somehow not allowed to use force or fraud on others, just because."
"The greatest good for the greatest number."
"Freedom is more important than anything else."
"People have a duty to do what is right."
"I'm an individual, unconnected to anything or anyone."
"No man is an island, we are all a part of the main."
"When I die, all point and purpose to this universe ends, because I can no longer replete my desires."
"The beautiful, the true, and the good are eternal. There are plenty of people to inherit these great things after I'm gone. Even in the last event that all should perish, these goods will persist, crystalline and perfect, by the fact that they once Happened, a reality which time cannot erase or undo. Death, where is thy sting?"
Now, this doesn't mean we should be slavering attention on our retards and insane, our criminals and druggees. This is because none of these people will ever produce any utility, because their minds are too weak and worthless to even approach the spiritual goods found in Truth, Beauty, and Love. How many of these people can have a happy family life? How many can understand science or philosophy? How many of them can appreciate good art and understand what the artists are trying to say? No, throwing out random charity to all the losers of the world is not the 'answer' to libertarianism. Liberals are just as worthless as libertarians, in their own stupid way.
Liberals believe that there can be no asserting of the good, for that would have a disproportionate impact. Instead, anything that bears a resemblance to the human form (unless it's an innocent baby) must be treated like the King of Kings. No one must ever criticize anyone else, because that might hurt their self esteem. Everyone is entitled to win every competition. In fact, competitions shouldn't have any winners or losers, in fact, there shouldn't even be any competitions in the first place. No one should tell other people what to do, because how would they know? What anyone does, or doesn't do, must be treated equally, without rendering judgment. If some lifestyles are destructive while others aren't, we must equalize all outcomes so that everyone is free to do just as they please without any unpleasant consequences getting in the way.
Liberalism is insane and completely destructive. Good cannot survive in an environment where it's evil to have standards, or declare anything better than something else. Just like libertarians, they reject objective thinking. But their relativism goes to the other extreme that we must help everyone equally, instead of helping only yourself. They also have no basis for this opinion. They just keep repeating themselves as though brute force of words can somehow make their opinion make sense. People aren't equal. They're clearly and visibly unequal. So why on Earth would it be moral to treat them as though they were? To pretend they are something they aren't?
Everyone should be treated as they're due. People of high utility should be made to prosper, people of low utility should be culled. The goal is to maximize utility, not the population of humans, and certainly not to equalize how happy mankind is between all its members, even if that means lowering the total world happiness. Where did such madness come from? Equality? Freedom? Why are these goods, and happiness is left out of the picture entirely? If everyone were equally free to starve on top of Mt. Everest, would that be an ideal world? Would libertarians and egalitarians get together and sing kumbayah because now all of their desires had been met?
In utilitarianism, if everyone is equally unhappy, that's called negative utility. If they're all free, but powerless to effect their desires, that's called negative utility. There are no paradoxes or obvious absurdities in utilitarianism. That is because it is the only true morality. It is the only morality that makes any rational sense.
Anyone who is not a utilitarian is evil. This is because they actively work day and night to make sure a world structured around maximizing utility cannot happen. No matter how much utility they create in their own personal lives, their philosophical opposition, their political opposition, their cultural opposition to utilitarianism causes far more harm than their personal lives do good.
Remember, the utility of future people is equal to anyone in the present, and there are potentially quadrillions of them. Therefore if in your personal life you laugh all day, but in your professional life you make it .000001% harder to create a utilitarian future, then your own personal life's contribution to utility is only a tiny fraction, 1 billionth or so, of the harm you've done to the people of the future. You are a billion times as evil as you are good. Anyone who isn't actively trying to create a utilitarian world is therefore negative utility.
How many people aren't utilitarians? Judging by the arguments they make in public, which don't even assert the basic principles of utilitarianism, I'd say at least 99%. Some people have some confused idea that by being free, or equal, they will generate more happiness overall. But these people are flat out wrong. Michelangelo's art was sponsored by the government. So were Shakespeare's plays. And most science done in the world today is also government sponsored. If we had been libertarians, almost no truth or beauty would have ever occurred on Earth. And the selfishness of egocentric people could never build a truly loving relationship, not even one. What is love when it can end in a moment, the moment it stops suiting the individual? That's not love! If it lasts for longer than a one night stand, that's solely a coincidence of degree, not of quality.
Equality won't help anyone because it's impossible to manage, because genes are unequal, so all it can do is destroy. Furthermore, if we were all the same then our creative scope would be ridiculously limited and the utility of quadrillions of independent actors would be reduced to just one carbon copy reproducing the same thing over and over again. A repeating decimal future is no future.
Therefore these 'freedom and equality for the sake of happiness' types are just as bad as the people who say that freedom or equality are the highest goods in themselves. They're both stupid and ridiculous.
The best thing that could possibly happen in the world today is if all non-utilitarians suddenly keeled over from a heart attack. Attaching yourself to any other group, like a nation or a race, is so absurd, compared to how important someone's philosophy is. Once the world belongs to the only rational philosophy, it could instantly be ordered in such a way that everyone was happy for all time. Machines can already do all necessary work on Earth. They can already 'see', carry things, transport things, and 3-d printers can already manufacture anything on demand. The problem of production is solved. The only problem is the production of utility. To produce utility, people need the right family environment, the right education, and the right philosophy. From that basis they can go out and let a thousand flowers bloom. They can start their own families, based on the correct principles of utilitarianism, that asserts that the unique goods found in a faithful, caring, and physically close group cannot be replicated by 'free love' or endure with 'free choice'. They can go paint flowers, write books, or investigate chemical compounds or quarks. They can do whatever they want, with the vast resources of the world at their beck and call, all ferried to them as finished goods by machines acting automatically. The only reason we haven't started with autonomous machine communities is because they are more expensive than hiring cheap labor. It isn't impossible. If we eliminated all the cheap labor, then machines would be the obvious recourse, and then life lived for utility, not for money, could truly begin.
The only reason we aren't all rich enough to afford autonomous machine servants is because the Earth's resources, also known as 'capital,' are spread too damn thin, between too damn many people. Just think if we were all billionaires with claims to thousands of square miles of land a piece, with machines to work the land and harvest everything found therein, all placed before the palatial temple that was your countryside manor, or perhaps ferried into 'the last city on Earth,' where all people gathered to exchange their services. Why not have two homes? One on your own, in the midst of nature's beauty, and one in the 'City,' like the London of the 1800's, that drew all things to its bright and bustling center, full of coffee houses and music concerts.
Because we demanded 'freedom' to suit our own personal wishes, we were allowed to have as many kids as we wanted. Because we demanded 'equality,' all of these kids, no matter how stupid or criminal or worthless, were supported by the state. The devil's brew between these two philosophies has been crippling worldwide poverty. Technology keeps improving by leaps and bounds, productivity keeps doubling and redoubling, but we never see any of these benefits, indeed we can't see any rise in standard of living for almost the last century, because the population has been doubling and redoubling right alongside our economic growth. Every last surge in production has been met by another surge in people, so that we are, per capita, no better off than before.
If we simply reduced our population back to what it was in 1500, while keeping all the technological gains since that time, can you imagine how rich each individual would be? It would be a new Xanadu.
People say there isn't overpopulation, but that's because they just don't understand the term.
Overpopulation is when the marginal utility of an additional soul is negative.
We can be overpopulated with blacks with the very first black, because they're net negatives from the very start.
But we can be overpopulated even with Galileo's and Alexander's, if they can't find a job suited to their abilities, and are forced to wait a table at Mcdonald's. It doesn't matter that they can survive. Unemployment, poverty, and the indignity of not being able to match what's blazing internally in your external environment, are already negative marginal utilities. We already have statistics showing that only 1/3 of PhD's get a job in their field, and actually get to do some sort of research project. The other 2/3 of PhD's are overpopulation. They have the talent, but not the funding, to live a utility-bearing life. If only we had spread out our PhD population such that there was an equal amount of funding for science, in terms of raw material goods production, to the number of people wishing to do science while consuming raw material goods -- then think how much happier all those PhD holders would have been to live at a later date, instead of now.
In the past, humans had to gather all their food themselves. There was barely any time for art and science. What art and science there was, was extremely primitive, far below the brain's capacity to understand and appreciate the world. As time went by, though, we learned how to tame plants and animals, as well as other humans, so that a few people could truly concentrate on spiritual goods instead of personal upkeep. These people quickly improved the state of science and art, but were still stymied by the lack of massive power and materials that are necessary for the next step.
Movies cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce. Space stations cost hundreds of billions. These types of resources, which are necessary to make full use of our ability to understand and appreciate the world, needed to wait for the industrial revolution. But once we had fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and solar power, as well as turbines, computers, and the internet, we finally had the infrastructure necessary to empower the next generation of artists and scientists. Indeed, our music, games, pictorial art, narrative art, and everything else is higher than ever before -- but still most people aren't allowed to participate in it!
Most people are too stupid to enjoy the incredible media all around them. They even mock it as somehow stupid or boring compared to sex and drugs. We have these man-pigs going around rutting for alcohol, cigarettes, and women while ignoring the finest art works that have ever been made. Never mind even the 2011 anime, they refuse to visit the Louvre, or walk through the Museum of Natural History, or enjoy anything known to be good at all.
Now we are in a double bind -- people who want to enjoy art or research science, can't afford it because they can't get a job in that field, despite their intellectual capacity to thrive in it. Meanwhile people surrounded by art and science can't understand or appreciate it, because it has surpassed their feeble brains' limits.
Always before we just needed to throw more money at art and science. We still need to do that. But for the first time, we also need to throw more people of competent brain power at the art and science we've already produced. 150 years after Darwin discovered the brilliant explanation for all life on Earth, evolution, the majority of Americans don't even believe in it. This is what's called 'negative marginal utility.' Those people don't need to be alive. They don't need to be competing with real people for our water, oil, food, natural scenery, or anything else. They need to stop breathing. 150 years after Galton figured out that excellence tended to run in families and therefore some people should breed while others shouldn't, we live in a totalitarian nightmare which will fire anyone if they do not proclaim that the son of black thug in prison is just as likely to be the next Einstein as the son of, say, Richard Feynman. These people also are 'negative marginal utility' and have no reason to be taking up valuable space on this Earth.
The upkeep cost of all these worthless eaters is two-fold. Their existence precludes the existence of other, better people, who could be consuming the same resources they are. And, next off, the resources they're currently consuming could be redistributed to the people already alive who could make much better use of them, if even for a summer home or a new Ferrari. These fools are utterly worthless. They are worse than useless, because they have a vote, and they stop the world from moving on from their stupidity and to the promised heights of utilitarianism.
If I had a red button that could instantaneously kill off everyone with whom I disagree, I'd push it. The remainder of the population would inherit the whole Earth, and as a harmonious, united group could cultivate an ideal future for all the quadrillions of humans, or mind children, to come. The whole world was settled by less than a thousand people. So if only a thousand people agree with me, no problem, push the button and let's begin.
But since I lack this extremely convenient button, the next best idea would be for a commune of sorts, that can see reason, to pool their resources and buy the first space ship out of this hellhole and to a distant land. In that new planet, we can act freely, with our own state power, and our own family, education, and law code. The Kepler telescope has found billions of habitable planets with liquid water and warm suns. For all we know tons of them already have oxygen atmospheres and grassy meadows just waiting for us to plant that first stalk of wheat. The cost of a one way trip to one of these hospitable planets would certainly be steep, but so is the cost of health care. Between living a few extra years, from 75 to 78, or having an entirely new planet to inhabit and run, to give our children the first homeland devoted to utility and free of the stupid madmen who run Earth, which is better?