Confusing Heaven Vs Hell: Christianity Vs Marxism
You have completely misunderstood utilitarianism or the amoral ethics of consequentialism. Here is a brief explanation on Bible-hermeneuticsSE, where I explained how socialism cannot be confused with altruism since socialism/marxism is based on amoral utilitarianism.
The Marxist Utilitarianism aims for social worldly pleasure or happiness. It is by definition amoral in which its ethics is consequentialism, as opposed to deontological morality/value based ethics. Consequential ethics morality is relativistic, in other words, whatever action is deemed right that produces a certain interest or goal (e.g. self-interest of preferential consequentialism or hedonistic-consequentialism) which are normally described as "good" or maximum pleasure. Consequentialist ethics, therefore, cannot be confused with objective morality of value based ethics of deontology.
(wikipedia) consequentialism is a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome. ... Consequentialists hold in general that an act is right if and only if the act (or in some views, the rule under which it falls) will produce, will probably produce, or is intended to produce, a greater balance of good over evil than any available alternative.
New world encyclopedia hesitantly describes consequentialism, though I encourage readers to find better sources which clearly differentiate it as an amoral or relativistic ethics and discern by yourself using logic:
Moral theories may be classified according to how they specify the relation between the theory of value and the theory of right action. The Greek word, telos, means goal, end, or purpose; teleology is the study of goals, ends and purposes; teleological ethical theories, therefore, emphasize that morality is oriented toward bringing about a certain goal. Consequentialism is one important sort of teleological moral theory. Consequentialism in its most general form is the claim that a normative property (such as "rightness," "wrongness," "virtuousness," etc.) depends on the value of consequences. There are various forms of consequentialism. For example, act consequentialism holds that the right act for a particular agent is the one that produces the greatest balance of good over bad consequences. Rule consequentialism justifies moral rules according to the value that the rules tend to promote. Motive consequentialism is the thesis that the moral qualities of an action depend on the overall consequences of actions done from a particular motive.
The Biblical Christian social utopia seen in Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32 is based on altruism which comes from truth and value based obedience to the objective/real moral law of God.
And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.... Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.
To confuse the Utilitarian amoral Utopia of worldly pleasure with the eternal joy of those who deserve the reward of eternal life due to their success in obedience to God is to confuse Marxism with Christianity. It is the typical misconception that confuses socialism with altruism.
Socialism is Not Altruism
The Marxist Utilitarian leaders like Stalin, or philosophers like Sam Harris, both openly defends eating human babies for the sake of increasing social happiness. It is the opposite of the Biblical ethics which rewards sacrificial love or morality based ethics. It should be noted that a Utilitarian (communist/Marxist) culture sucks out all humanity from its slaves, as it rewards obedience to its barbaric system that suppresses the well-being of people, and leads to increase of selfishness and sins or crimes, as seen in China's examples.
Utilitarian utopia is the idea of increasing worldly pleasure, it should not be confused with goodness or morality. Heaven is the reward for obeying God's laws and following his commands, it is not a social utopia. In no possible world where heaven can be occupied by evil wicked people, whereas as demonstrated by the nations working under Marxism, the Marxist Utopia is always occupied by the most cruel and evil people. You are making the same errors as amateur Sam Harris, who mistakenly promoted his amoral social landscape as morally good. Confusing pleasure with goodness.
So this is a critical move in his moral theory—redefining the word “good” to simply mean the well-being of conscience creatures, so that now the question becomes pointless – “Why think that the flourishing of conscious creatures is good on atheism?”
And the problem is that he admits that it's possible that the moral landscape, that is to say, the highs and lows of moral values, good at the peaks and bad at the valleys, that that moral landscape, he said, could fall apart from the landscape of creaturely well-being. You could have a possible world in which the peaks of well-being were occupied by morally evil people – rapists and thieves and psychopaths, people like that – and in that case he says, he admits this in his book, that his so-called moral landscape would no longer be a moral landscape. It would just be a continuum of creaturely well-being, but it wouldn't map morality—it wouldn't map the moral landscape. So what that means is it's possible that goodness and creaturely well-being are not identical after all.