"...it makes me feel good. Doesn't it make you feel good? I don't know for sure but I think a lot of other humans feel good when their fellow humans get what they want and don't suffer."
"I want you to be happy. Really. That is what I want. That is what I have said, that I want people to act in accordance with their desires. I have said that I would like to do the same thing. If your desires include commiting acts that would cause suffering to someone else, that would be a problem, and then I'd want to stop you. But as long as you're not doing something that violates that, than no, I don't want you to what I want you to do, I want you to do what you want to do."
Those two are not necessarily the same. People often desire things which _do not_ make them happy. Drug addicts are a perfect example. Which is what you are after? Fulfilling desires or creating pleasure (happiness)?
But anyway, it appears to me that your will for the world is your own happiness. That is, after all, how you justified wanting people to act on their own desires. Because that made you happy. People's wills then, by your justification of why you desire the world to be, are constrained by what makes you unhappy.
But what if things that make others happy - makes you unhappy? By how you justified your desire of the world they should not do it! If it makes you unhappy then you must desire for them not to do it.
You go shopping and you're badly craving chocolate ice cream. You go into the supermarket and see that there's just one bucket left. You start walking over to get it and someone gets there before you and takes that ice cream. Obviously such an action would displease you since you are no longer getting that ice cream. So, according to your justification of what you desire, you must desire for him to bend to your will and give you the ice cream.
If you do not will your will to be dominant and you care for his happiness over yours then you are contradicting your very reason for why you will anything at all. It is obvious that there is something beyond your simple pleasure which drives you to desire an egalitarian society.
And *that* is morality.
1. Happiness drives your will.
2. You will all wills be equal.
3. It makes you happy if all wills are equal.
4. Not all wills will agree.
5. Your will will not always agree with others'.
6. Resolution of competing wills will mean that one will will remainundone.
7. A will remaining undone will lead to unhappiness.
8. Your will will sometimes remain undone.
9. This will lead to your unhappiness.
10. If your will for equal wills be carried out it will lead to yourbeing unhappy.
C1: Thus, since your will is decided by your happiness, you mustconclude that you do not will for all wills to be equal.
C2: If you continue to will equal wills then you must admit that youwill it for a reason other than your own happiness.
Even if you don't like it, you do desire your will to be more powerful than other's. Why should the other guy get the parking spot? Of course you want what you want. What you want will often be mutually exclusive of what others want. Since all wills are equal, you won't always get what you want. Not getting what you want will make you unhappy. And since it will make you unhappy this "equal wills" business _cannot_ be what you want.
This is why I said earlier that I did not believe you when you said that you really want others to be happy and not for your own power.By your own admission, you only want others to be happy so that you can be happy. But with equal wills - it must sometimes make you unhappy too. What you want then is "equal wills" for everyone else but your will to be above them all. That just makes you human. If you still want equality knowing that it will make you unhappy then you must becalling on a power besides your own happiness for why you want it.
And that's where morality steps in.