Mt 24:35: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”
I’m afraid His words are just slightly more authoritative…
May I ask what the reason would be for not behaving egoistically in the example I gave for Acquaticus?
I asked him the following question
“Suppose I’m an atheist and find myself in a position where I can gain maximum wealth and well-being for myself and my family—at the expense of others—without facing any legal consequences (in this scenario I have very powerful friends protecting me and assuring that I’m untouchable)…why shouldn’t I do that? Why should I care at all about some made-up morality? From my perspective, whether I live like El Chapo or like Gandhi, the same fate awaits me: a pack of worms devouring my corpse (or fire burning it to ashes). That’s it. So why choose the so-called ‘moral’ path, which seems entirely fictional, when I could secure the greatest benefit for myself and my offspring and loved ones by doing otherwise?”
He has not been able to respond so far. He did tell me that if I have empathy, I should be able to understand why that behavior is wrong, to which I replied as follows
“if I came to believe again (as i did in the past, before my conversion) that we live in a meaningless universe where, whether I live like Himmler or like Oscar Schindler, I end up the same way (that is, devoured by worms or burned by fire, and that’s it), I would absolutely prioritize my own well-being and my family’s well-being at the expense of others—especially if, as in the example I mentioned in the post you quoted, I could do so without legal repercussions. Why would I do that? Because I would have no reason not to. It would be highly irrational to place the well-being of strangers above that of myself and my family. If we are merely bags of meat destined for oblivion regardless of our choices, then failing to prioritize our own well-being and that of our loved ones—even at the expense of others, if we can get away with it—would be the very definition of irrationality. This behavior may serve an evolutionary purpose (as society would otherwise collapse into a Hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes), but as a conscious being, I can choose not to give two flying f**ks about evolutionary purposes—especially when, from an atheist perspective, they amount to nothing more than a cold, senseless, heartless mechanism. Actually, now that I think about it, I would say that not giving two figs about evolutionary purposes would, in that scenario, more clearly distinguish me from lower animals: namely, the ability to establish my own priorities and even act against the ‘natural order’ when necessary—especially since that natural order would have no inherent value and would not give two figs about me or my loved ones. I would see no inherent value in subjecting myself to such a mechanism. In fact, from a materialist perspective, doing so would bring me closer to lower animals, since they cannot choose not to serve their evolutionary purpose. But I can.”
Do you or he have any counterargument explaining why, in a situation like the one outlined above, one should follow the ‘moral’ path and renounce one’s own and one’s loved ones’ greater good for the sake of strangers, when one can choose to act selfishly without repercussions—especially if one believes that this miserably short life is, for oneself and one’s loved ones, the only spark of light between two literal eternities of darkness and complete annihilation that await everyone, regardless of whether one has lived like El Chapo or like Maximilian Kolbe?
Yes, there are behaviors that are harmful to oneself no matter what, and one can conclude—reasoning from a completely secular perspective—that such behaviors should not be permitted. I am not denying that. But what about situations in which one can be selfish and “antisocial” without facing any repercussions, while securing the greatest benefit for oneself and one’s family? Such situations do exist. Why should one make sacrifices in those cases? For what reasons?