One way to ground this issue, is to consider both it's historical precedents and the underlaying processes that human behavior naturally models.

For example, consider that democracy and republicanism originated in pantheistic cultures.

To the Ancients, gods were metaphysical concepts relating to the world around them. Much as we have social imperatives today. Monotheism equated with monoculture. One people, one rule, one god. It was tribal and the pantheism of late antiquity was a form of multiculturalism. The Romans adopted and co-opted gnostic Christianity as the Empire solidified around oligarchs and remnants of the Republic were being erased. As such, it was a political branding, to give social validity to top down political rule.

The logical fallacy of our current concept of a universal god is that a spiritual absolute would necessarily be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. Ideals are not absolutes, but the long shadow cast by this theology motivates much of Western culture, as the various groups see their ideals as beyond question and any divergence as evil.

To which it should be added that good and bad are not some cosmic conflict, between righteousness and evil, but the basic biological binary of beneficial and detrimental. The 1/0 of sentience. The ideal good makes as much sense as the perfect yes.

When it is treated as the ideal, then all the higher order nuance, subjectivity and complexity is lost, in the race to the bottom.

Another major issue is that money functions as a social contract, enabling mass societies, but we treat it as a commodity to mine from society. Econ 101 declares it as both medium of exchange and store of value, but one is dynamic, while the other is static. Blood is a medium fat is a store. Would it work to confuse them?

Here is an essay I wrote, trying to peel away some of the layers; https://johnbrodixmerrymanjr.medium.com/the-cliffs-edge-2b382ae2a73