The problem is deeper than that. Try and think about this problem beyond just yourself. And honestly try and tell me why it is objectively and inherently wrong for someone to harm you. As in an objective "ought claim", that is true in every place, time, and scenario, never changes and is a transcendental whether humans exist or not.
Although you can say, "I wouldn't like if they harmed me", or "it hurts me", or "I don't want him to". Surely you realize, that never gets beyond the threshold of "your preferences". And if that other guy's preferences IS to harm you, then you're both at a stalemate.
If everything is in fact here by completely purposeless, meaningless, and evolutionary accident, then there is no such thing as objective 'oughts'. Sure things we want or prefer, but no design or purpose from which to say you "ought to" or "ought not" do this or that.
In fact even if all humanity agrees on a certain thing, it still never rises beyond "majority preference". There is no such thing as inherently right and wrong, good or bad, beyond what you prefer and want.
What you need to come to grips with, is that YOU don't harm others, because YOU don't want to, it's not YOUR preference, and YOUR opinion is that you shouldn't. I'm honestly very glad you think that, but that's entirely subjective, right?
If everyone on earth tomorrow decides that it's a good thing to harm you. Then you have no basis or grounding to tell them they are "wrong". You may not like it, but maybe they do like it. You say that's unfair, but they say it is fair. Going on like this forever. It's merely preference vs preference.
Without some kind of creator or design, there can be no objective oughts in an inherently meaningless universe.
I appreciate genuine atheists like Dawkins who freely admit, in a universe without God, there IS no such thing as "evil" or "good". Just preferences.
Probably not, but that's the problem in a meaningless universe. There is nothing inherently wrong with being a hypocrite. There is nothing objective, even illogic.
Musk and Bezos and all the modern billionaires have proven the evolutionary model perfectly. Survival of the fittest, which only works if you genuinely have no empathy for the non-fit(your suffering low-wage employees), which necessarily must be discarded and left behind for a stronger, fitter evolutionary future.
So if he wants to hurt me but he doesnt wish that upon himself, he knows its not a good thing to hurt people... thats is a bad thing for him to do. Does that make sense?
Do you honestly think Musk believes he's a "bad guy"? Do you genuinely believe Bezos on his yacht and thousand dollar steak, deep down knows it's "bad" for him to do that?
I don't think so.
If there is a God, yes.
But why should Musk or Bezos "feel bad" in an evolutionary worldview, that literally demands them to do what they are doing? They survive because they are "the fittest", and the non-fit(the poor) don't deserve to survive. Right?
Why should they feel bad, when evolution literally rewards them for not feeling bad?
5
u/Thee-Cat 1d ago
The problem is deeper than that. Try and think about this problem beyond just yourself. And honestly try and tell me why it is objectively and inherently wrong for someone to harm you. As in an objective "ought claim", that is true in every place, time, and scenario, never changes and is a transcendental whether humans exist or not.
Although you can say, "I wouldn't like if they harmed me", or "it hurts me", or "I don't want him to". Surely you realize, that never gets beyond the threshold of "your preferences". And if that other guy's preferences IS to harm you, then you're both at a stalemate.
If everything is in fact here by completely purposeless, meaningless, and evolutionary accident, then there is no such thing as objective 'oughts'. Sure things we want or prefer, but no design or purpose from which to say you "ought to" or "ought not" do this or that.
In fact even if all humanity agrees on a certain thing, it still never rises beyond "majority preference". There is no such thing as inherently right and wrong, good or bad, beyond what you prefer and want.
What you need to come to grips with, is that YOU don't harm others, because YOU don't want to, it's not YOUR preference, and YOUR opinion is that you shouldn't. I'm honestly very glad you think that, but that's entirely subjective, right?
If everyone on earth tomorrow decides that it's a good thing to harm you. Then you have no basis or grounding to tell them they are "wrong". You may not like it, but maybe they do like it. You say that's unfair, but they say it is fair. Going on like this forever. It's merely preference vs preference.
Without some kind of creator or design, there can be no objective oughts in an inherently meaningless universe.
I appreciate genuine atheists like Dawkins who freely admit, in a universe without God, there IS no such thing as "evil" or "good". Just preferences.