>>/73431/
He means there's nothing wrong with it.

Ultimately there's nothing wrong with anything.

If you want morality you can go with the kinds of people who think racism is a sin.

I've dome the philosophy.

We start with the question why is it that what god says is good, is good?

I eliminate "because he's infinitely wise" because that tautological, wisdom means knowing what is good, so good has no meaning if we accept this answer.

I eliminate also "because he made everything" because we don't know if he did and are given reason to believe he did not if we are talking about the abrahamic god of the most influential monotheisms (most people are), but more importantly we don't use creation as the basis for deciding that someone has ultimate authority or else wed be fine giving parents ultimate authority over the children or founders ultimate authority over the countries they created.

Besides it doesn't relate to what people usually say when appealing to god as the ultimate authority, which is that he will reward those who follow him with heaven, and punish those who don't with hell (the important here is that those who follow him go to heaven and those who don't go to hell)

Heaven is the ultimate pleasure, greater than all pleasures on earth, while hell is the ultimate pain, greater than all of earth's pains, and your actions determine your fate, not someone else's.

God is also the strongest man there is, so he has the might makes right (by deciding who is left) principle working for him. Anyone whose ever gotten close to challenging his reign got smacked tf down. He's unbeatable.

Thus the most important thing is your own pleasure, and your own pain, you want to maximize your pleasure and minimize your pain, and this applies to you, not you and some others, that only matter insofar as they impact how young feel.

This principle holds even when you go through normative ethical systems like utilitarian or deontology or the hybrid deontological rule utilitarianism, it all comes down to the pleasure vs pain of one person (yourself), so the likes of Protagoras, Callicles, Thrasymachus, Niccollo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Marquis De Sade, Max Stirner, and Frederich Nietzsche were correct.

But smart people will also take a Machiavellian approach that focuses on minmaxing pleasure/pain overall in the long term over chasing it in the moment.

Niccolo Machiavelli suggested one would best act in their rational self-interest by making a set of rules for their behaviors that optimized their personal benefit as a trend, and sticking to them even in times they disadvantage you because the important thing is consistency of habits, make one exception and you will be tempted to make more until you fuck up.