The most obvious interpretation of “selfish utility maximizer” is someone who has a selfish utility function, and if you meant something else, you should have clarified. The context suggests that “selfish utility function” is exactly what you meant. Moreover, your conclusions require that “selfish utility function” is what you meant. Under this reading, being a selfish utility maximizer has no relationship to being rational; the contents of utility functions are arational. Because rationality does not imply anything about your utility function, your conclusions simply don’t follow. You argument seems to center on this:
Rationality means acting to achieve your goals. There will almost always be other people who are more powerful than you and who have resources that you need, and they don’t want you to achieve your goals. They want you to achieve their goals.
“They don’t want you to achieve your goals” is probably, in almost all cases where you apply it, false. My lover probably does want me to achieve my goals. My employer is, at the worst, indifferent as to whether I achieve my goals or not. Except of course where my goals coincide(oppose) their goals, then they want me to succeed(fail). But “your” and “their” in this context are not inherently oppositional, and your entire argument revolves around assuming that they are. As it is, there is simply no reason for them to prefer an irrational actor to a rational one. They prefer someone who achieves their goals. Being rational is not strictly better or worse than being irrational; it’s a combination of their utility function and how efficiently they pursue their utility function. Rationality is only half of that and, in many ways, the less important half.
The most obvious interpretation of “selfish utility maximizer” is someone who has a selfish utility function, and if you meant something else, you should have clarified. The context suggests that “selfish utility function” is exactly what you meant. Moreover, your conclusions require that “selfish utility function” is what you meant. Under this reading, being a selfish utility maximizer has no relationship to being rational; the contents of utility functions are arational. Because rationality does not imply anything about your utility function, your conclusions simply don’t follow. You argument seems to center on this:
“They don’t want you to achieve your goals” is probably, in almost all cases where you apply it, false. My lover probably does want me to achieve my goals. My employer is, at the worst, indifferent as to whether I achieve my goals or not. Except of course where my goals coincide(oppose) their goals, then they want me to succeed(fail). But “your” and “their” in this context are not inherently oppositional, and your entire argument revolves around assuming that they are. As it is, there is simply no reason for them to prefer an irrational actor to a rational one. They prefer someone who achieves their goals. Being rational is not strictly better or worse than being irrational; it’s a combination of their utility function and how efficiently they pursue their utility function. Rationality is only half of that and, in many ways, the less important half.