Screw you, Mr. Nice Guy.

Recently, probably due to the Baader Meinhof phenomenon, I’ve been hearing people declaring themselves to be ‘nice guys’ quite a bit.

This irks me. I do not like Nice Guys, and I do not respect neither the person nor the character trait, for most commonly used definitions of ‘nice’.

I say this because good is not nice.

Contrary to popular beliefs, nice guys aren’t good. Being ‘nice’ is easy, trivial, and a standard everyone can accomplish. But it is a standard worth nothing. Being ‘merely’ nice is incredibly easy, and doesn’t require any true sacrifice on your part.

And it is this lack of sacrifice than denotes being merely nice as Not Good Enough.

You cannot be both good and a ‘nice guy’ at the same time.

This does not mean that nice guys are evil. Reverse good is not evil. I do not despise ‘nice guys’ any more than I despise non-utilitarians, or people who have not dedicated themselves to philosophies of efficient altruism. I simply treat nice guys with contempt.

I say that Good is not nice because it is simply impossible for nice guys to be good.

Good is Utilitarianism.
Good is the willingness to kill an innocent  baby to prevent a future Hitler from arising.
Good is kidnapping and murdering a politician’s innocent family to blackmail him from making an unjust law that will harm many more.
Good is sociopathic Machiavellianism
Good is both the willingness and ability to unremorsefully lie to everyone around you for the sake of power, to gain the ability to optimize the world in utilitarian ways.
Good is the ability to choose fifty years of torture over 3^^^3 dust specks, even if the one facing that fifty years of torture is your own family.
Good is the ability to pull the lever on a runaway trolley track, killing one person for the sake of five.
Good is the ability to bribe, cheat, and lie your way into saving as many lives as possible, while disregarding all desire for material possessions.
Good is the ability to kill your parents in cold blood to prevent the potential risk of them harming others. Twice.
Good is the ability to ignore any damage to reputation as the result of doing any of these actions.

Nice guys can’t do these things. Therefore I refuse to treat people with a ‘nice’ disposition as praiseworthy.

I am a Utilitarian. This means I am ruthless. Efficient. Cold-blooded. Calculative. Manipulative. I will do all these things and more, if this means I can save one more life, help one more person, hasten the Singularity by one more day, or lessen the probability of humanity’s extinction by one percentage point of a percentage point.

At the very least, that’s my ideal. I’ll become any type of monster to strive as close to this ideal as possible. Some people object and naively declare that the ends don’t justify the means, as though that were a real objection. The means are the ends. It is a law of the Universe that in order to gain something valuable, one has to sacrifice something in return; otherwise it would have been low-hanging fruit and eaten up already. Saving lives cannot be free. This does not mean that they should not be purchased.

In other words, Utilitarians are scary. Do not fuck with us. We’ll eat you alive.


2 Comments on “Screw you, Mr. Nice Guy.”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Be warned or reminded that this kind of talk has always belonged under the hood. Some people’s painful struggle to keep humans in denial about what it takes to avoid extinction is the root reason why humans deserve to be protected from extinction (by people like you) in the first place.

  2. anon says:

    How is this about nice guys? Nice is a disposition. It’s about being kind when it costs you little or nothing to do so. Not about being squeamish. 99.99%+ of people are not hardcore utilitarians or efficient altruists anyway, and being nice is incompatible with neither so why are nice guys even mentioned? “Screw you, almost everyone” would have been a better title.

    about the list:

    If everyone is a Machiavellian sociopath nobody is happy.

    It can be worth sacrificing your reputation to do a lot of good, but doing so will make it hard to do more good in the future.

    When is killing people for potential harm they could do +utillity?

    When is advertising your own ruthless utilitarianism +utility?

    How is treating almost everybody with contempt +utility?

    This looks like a personal motivational speech/statement of intent that has little use to anyone else (It’s certainly not written to convert anyone to utilitarianism.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s