Utilitarianism functions as a paradigm

Utilitarianism applied to the individual defies human nature. Humans cannot be expected to weigh the "pleasure" vs. "pain" of all of society before taking a given action. Humans are naturally going to be biased in favor of maximizing their own pleasure. Man should not be a sacrificial animal willing to extinguish his own life if he deems it will add to societal "pleasure" more than society's (especially his own) "pain" -- and men, in general, are not going to do this. It goes against man's nature, the basis of which is the desire to preserve and extent his own life. Utilitarianism applied to the government is even more dangerous. If it can be reasoned that inflicting "pain" on one group advances the "pleasure" of another group to a greater degree, then utilitarianism justifies this infliction of pain. Perhaps this could be understandable IF there were an objective standard of what is good and how pleasure and pain could be quantified -- but there's not. Whomever is making the decision is naturally going to be biased, as above. Even if one is sincere in trying to maximize societal pleasure, even at one's own expense, NO ONE is smart enough to centrally plan the happiness of society. No one can possibly know the values of every living man, woman, and child, and how to quantify pleasure and pain. And no one can ever be 100% confident of the outcome of an action before it is taken. Human nature is to act in one's own self interest. When restrained by the doctrine of natural rights -- essentially, that one person may not initiate force against another -- then no one can be directly harmed by the actions of another. If all societally condoned human relations are voluntary and consensual, then there is no opportunity for exploitation or abuse. Perhaps initiating force, exploiting and/or abusing your neighbor would add to your pleasure more than it adds to your neighbor's pain, but how can you be certain? How can you quantify this? It is better to pursue happiness without infringing upon your neighbor, and thereby, no miscalculation in utility (causing more pain than pleasure due to human error or misunderstanding) is possible. Only an omnipotent, omniscient God could act with perfect and unerring utilitarianism, and human beings are not omnipotent, omniscient gods. You say it is presumptuous to assume there are "natural rights." You would be correct if these rights included things like free healthcare, a minimum wage, and the right to not be discriminated against. But I can prove that everyone agrees that they have the right to be free from the non-consensual initiation of force -- because for an individual to deny this, he is giving his consent to have force initiated against him, thereby excluding himself from the axiom. Human beings should not be thought of as numbers of a balance sheet, nor as potentially sacrificial cattle. This is what utilitarianism teaches. Instead, each individual should be free from having violence initiated against him, and should act in his own self interest -- limited by his inability to initiate force against his neighbors. While I believe that this leads to the maximization of utility, that is not why I argue the point. Utilitarianism is not objective, and if followed by individuals or collectives, it can produce results that some would agree maximize utility, while others would disagree -- this is due to its subjective nature. But everyone CAN agree on the objective right to not have force initiated against them, as proven in the paragraph above. An omnipotent, omniscient God could make utilitarianism work. But in the absence of an activist God, an objective standard is necessary for human beings to universally evaluate the merit of a given action. Utilitarianism fails to provide an objective standard, and thus, it contradicts itself into paradox.