The truth is that philosophy is utterly clueless about nature.

For example, good and bad are not some cosmic conflict between righteousness and evil, but the basic biological binary of beneficial and detrimental.

We have this cultural indoctrination, originating in the need for tribal cohesion and synchrocity, where anyone not adhering to the Code was a threat, if not to the community, than to the authority of its more powerful members. Which current behavior shows, we have never evolved beyond.

When we assume good to be aspirational, rather than elemental, conflicts do become a race to the bottom, of us versus them, as any nuance or subjectivity is assumed to be traitorous. Then we come to resemble a bunch of poo pitching monkeys.

What about God? Basic logic would require a spiritual absolute to be the essence of sentience, from which life rises, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which it fell. Has philosophy, in all its debating, ever bother to consider that an ideal is not an absolute? One is elemental, while the other is aspirational.

Heck, even many mathematicians are platonists.

And capitalism? Those enlightened minds of economics assume money to be both medium of exchange and store of value, yet a medium is dynamic, while a store is static. Blood is a medium, fat is a store. Roads are a medium, parking lots are a store. The hallway is a medium, the hall closet is a store. The average five year old can figure out the difference, but economists obviously have spent way too much time in their own echo chambers. Just like the rest of the philosophers.

The fact is that in nature, if you are part of the herd, you can't think for yourself, or you won't instinctively go with the herd and accidents will happen. Yet if you are not part of the herd, none of the herd will listen to you. Catch 22.

Look at the bright side, people still have a lot of room to further evolve.