"My sole belief that I know is correct is that all beliefs about existance, how we came to be, etc. that have been outlined by humankind are wrong given the amount of information we have, which is 0".
You can`t say that your belief is correct and at the same say all that we know is wrong. That`s a contradiction. You can be either wrong or right. Therefore: "exactly why all beliefs are equally wrong" is not a correct way to aproach beliefs, seeing as we don`t know everything and therefore, logically speaking, utititarianism isn`t more or less flawless. It`s either right or wrong, according to your principle.
"and if everyone is equal I consider everyone to be miserable not happy". Equal by definition or by essence doesn`t necessarily mean that in existence or in real life everyone is the same, as reality shows. I am human as you, but as you see, what guide us and "defines us" - with all the consequences that come from it - are different.
You know, logic is all very nice and all, but it`s still a way to express something. One thing that is valid may not be true and one thing that is true, given the argument, may not be valid.
Using circular logic is, maybe, just our lack of better reasoning but that doesn`t mean things that are being defended are meaningless or as good as anything.
So what about circular logic? People define concepts while still utilizing categories associated to that object, that actually are part of it. It`s just a language barrier that doesn`t prove that something is right or wrong.
In every single regression argument, there`s a point where people can`t explain themselves without resorting the the foundation.
