I'm not talking about the fringe minority, m8.
I'm referring to the fact that even though individuals, even entire castes of them, can be prone to cooperation, the greater whole that they form functions selfishly.
There's no guarantee that whatever society you're born into will accept or even tolerate you just because you tried to follow their rules to the best of your ability. People's empathetic responses aren't thought-out dispassionate calculations of a person's moral merit based on their actions, their circumstances, or their intentions, they're at-a-glance
clockings of whether a person is one of you
or just not one of you.
If you happen to be born the wrong person, then no matter what you do, you may find yourself unable to find any tribe that takes you in, because they all reserve the right to throw you out on the highway if you vibe funny.
From an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense, since any individual that doesn't radiate the right empathetic markers may be diseased, hostile, or masking its intentions. The individual in question may
be totally benign, but evolution doesn't care about those few because they're the exception; empathetic response doesn't have to be perfectly accurate, it's just a heuristic.
What this does
tell us is that biological fitness does take precedence over fairness in many day-to-day interactions, which contradicts our prejudiced assumption that natural cooperation is the same as what we'd call "fairness." We tell ourselves that we strive to be dispassionate and impartial intellectually, but then our day-to-day interactions, predicated on heuristics that evolved with biological fitness in mind and not necessarily fairness, contradict that.
The enforcement of any order means the elimination of whatever agents contradict that order, which is an act of violence. We appeal to protecting these orders by saying that "they have the right to exist," a sensibility that is derived from our own notions of personal
rights to exist. But the continuation of any order, in accordance with its right to exist, implies forcing the individuals that comprise it to comply, and eliminating those that don't. The individual right to exist is negated by group right to exist, and individual self-determination is negated by group self-determination, inherently. Just by existing, the greater structure violates the very principles we use to justify it.
When we say "we must have a strong civilization, because we could not survive without it!", what are we saying of those who could not survive because
of it? Obviously our concern cannot be with human life itself, only with the larger set of human lives, those who are not thrown into society's burn pile. We are simply dictating that "the needs of the many shall supersede the needs of the few."
But if you're among the Few and you're being sacrificed, unless you happen to be particularly selfless, what do you care of the good of the "Many" when it's your own head on the chopping block? To you, the needs of the few
outweigh those of the many! All the tears and protests in the world won't be enough to convince your executioners that the needs of the many might not
outweigh those of the few, that none of them would ever accept the risk of being in your own situation if they knew what it were like.
It's not them
getting killed, so what do the tears of one "degenerate" mean to them?! "Fuck yours, got mine!" they say, privileged enough to have won the gamble.
In the end, they only agree to it because they can afford
to, no matter who else can't. In a sense, it's just Might Makes Right, not some exceptional, ethereal moral spirit that lies apart from all our other arbitrary heuristics.
If they can condone the atrocity that is Utilitarianism because, whether or not they realize it, they work on a principle of Might Makes Right, then I shall work on the principle that my Might makes my Right. The true implications of Utilitarianism prove that its holders are scarcely less "animalistic" than any other vulture at the end of the day.