The key is morality. For example, the argument is made that we would not value humanity if we did not have an absolute God telling us to. I find this to be ludicrous and I don't understand how any smart person could come such a conclusion. Even if entirely self-interested, we value humanity because our existence would be irrelevant and unsuccessful without humanity. Man is nothing without a society. The maximum division-of-labor dictates that our production and achievements can only increase (and be meaningful existing outside of our own perception) by being a member of a society.
The righteous points in the Bible are simply what smart men would realize are necessarily to have well functioning society. It doesn't require any God. The "judgments" against our sins are simply natural outcomes of not understanding the principles of a well functioning society.
The God part is necessary to get the people to follow who would otherwise defect from the principles of a well functioning society. But dumb people following blindly is top-down mind control and thus is not maximizing freedom and knowledge formation. I am leaning towards Ethical Monotheism is counter-productive.
I have not fully been following the thread, so forgive if my statements rehash previous posts.
Agreed entirely that even the most narcissistic individual can perceive the value of humanity. The differentiating factor I see is stratification suggesting that one person's value in an economic sense is the sole measure of that person's importance.
Without a direct relationship and understanding of a person's history it can be very easy to dismiss or inflate a given individual's importance relative to oneself. Meanwhile, the importance of that individual relative to his family and friends is likely to be vastly different. To know is to love.
Reputation and relationships are relative, but the foundations of them are universal. At the same time, our natural tendency toward the self generally precludes consideration of anyone not in our immediate sphere. If the assumption is that this existence is everything, a reasonable conclusion might be a goal of maximal self-gratification over acknowledgment of others. This also gives us a weakness in terms of manipulability when our own desires lead us into situations that are not actually to our benefit.
Finally, looking at humanity as an organism illuminates periods of change and growth. I cannot assume the perspectives of those living thousands of years ago to be the same as we have today. Their desires were the same, to be sure, but accumulated knowledge has changed the overall view. It may well be that the typical daily life of people thousands of years ago was more selfish and immature.
For my entire adult life I've asked myself this:
What if everything I know is a lie?
What is your answer?