What kind of groups are we talking about? And what is "an equal starting point?"

Is everyone equal before the law, or do you mean equally financially speaking? Are we talking about foreigners or your own people?

Those are all different questions

" we should strive to produce the most happiness - the most pleasure - for the most people"

This is what everyone strives for

This is what fascists strive for

This is what Marxists strive for

This is what liberals strive for

Heavily debateable

Actually not even debateable, just false

Kinda don't think Hitler wanted to make der Juden happy

Kinda don't think white supremacists care much about how happy non-whites are

and both before the law and financially, more or less

As without one or the other, such equity won't exist

Counterpoint: What did Hitler think eliminating the Jews would do for everyone else? @SilverLining

He thought it would make the world better, no?

He strove to make Aryans/Germanics happy

Not all people

I mean, he didn't intend to eliminate the slavs, iirc

he intended to use them as slave labor

It's striving to increase the happiness of a particular group

Rather than of everyone

"Kinda don't think white supremacists care much about how happy non-whites are"

You're looking at it the wrong way, they believe helping other races is going to harm more people than help

So like

Lynching African Americans isn't making African Americans less happy

You can easily argue they intend to make certain subsets happier

But not humanity as a whole

Well those people do it with the intention of "keeping blacks in their place" and from "hurting white people" etc

Most evil men throughout history had a selfless aspect to their ideology @SilverLining

Russian Empire should be revived

some kind, at least

Why do you think Hitler killed so many people?

Because he thought the world would be better if he did

To "help" another group of people

Again, he didn't really care about said other group

or their wellbeing

Which is what I'm trying to emphasize.

Okay, well then that's not the same as "striving for the greatest possible happiness for all"

There is a fine line, but it's there

"the greatest possible happiness for all" would include incorporating everyone, regardless of any innate factors

The logic that classical liberals used, was along the lines of, the poor should not be helped because it will extend their suffering to everyone else, right?

rather than just a portion of people

And what if one argues that doing so is a net negative?