If justice, love, and morality are nothing but abstractions from our minds that we generally all agree there really are, it it not right that all people are made really with equal rights, and there is no such thing as fair treatment, and trying to give fair treatment is only arbitrary. There would be those being real if they were more than abstractions from our minds that we generally agree are there, which is not really explained as it should be if it is so. Why should you think it so important? Why would you not sneak around those generally agreed on abstractions of our minds when it might be to your advantage when you see that and see that you can get away with it? It would be arbitrarily restricting you if you did not. Unless there is more to it than abstractions of our minds generally agreed on.
I think I got the gist of that - I think you're asking why people who think justice, love, and morality are mental abstractions still generally take them seriously. The reason is that, in this context, abstractions are ideas that generalise and/or idealise aspects of everyday experience, and everyday experience is important.
But it's important to distinguish between the abstraction and what it's an abstraction of.
Justice is an elaboration of the sense of fairness that is common to many social vertebrates and is an evolutionary product of social interaction. Even pre-linguistic babies show a clear preference for beneficial, helpful agents as opposed to obstructive, unhelpful agents. This basic intuition is modulated and elaborated by socialisation and enculturation, so that what is perceived as fair or just is contingent and contextual - i.e. justice is different in different cultures.
Love is an emotion that helps bind people together, mediated by specific neurotransmitters (although sometimes it refers to altruistic or sympathetic behaviour without the associated emotion).
Morality is the sum of these value-laden and enculturated intuitions and emotions - what feels right or wrong, what feels just or unjust, etc. Each individual has their own personal interpretation, but since most grow up in a particular culture they will typically absorb the mores of that culture. There are fundamental commonalities, possibly universalities, but they are contextual and contingent on socialisation, culture, and individual experience - e.g. killing is wrong,
except [in specific circumstances]. Common cultural morality is often codified into rules of acceptable behaviour and/or a legal framework.
Studies show that most people will indeed "
sneak around those generally agreed on abstractions of our minds when it might be to their advantage when they see that and see that they can get away with it", but only in very minor ways, and typically not as much as they potentially could. They then justify that to themselves. For example, people will 'borrow' the odd pencil, pen, notepad, and/or eraser, from the stationery cupboard at work, to use at home - they could probably get away with more, but usually don't - that would seem positively dishonest. Many honest drivers will exceed the speed limit when they feel it's justifiable (e.g. empty road, it seems safe, etc.)
In general, people are prepared to go beyond what their conscience (internalised morality) tells them is right, but only as far as they feel they can justify.
Necessary existence is not about something exists because it does exist. That is the case in the roundabout evidence we have observing anything. There is another existence that we can know there would be in the roundabout way of the logic of existence. What we see are contingent things that were caused to be. There would be necessary existence, that is not necessary because it exists, but it must exist, because existence is necessary. If existence is not necessary, but all of it, like all we observe, is contingent on being caused, logically nothing would exist. Contingent things cannot bring themselves into being. Existence is necessary and not all that exists is necessary, that necessary existence always existed, and never had any start, has no limitation which would be an arbitrary imposition, being necessary would then be unlimited, and has no end. As there are contingent things, those are ultimately caused by neccessary existence, which then has unlimited capacity to cause things further to be. It is not that we can understand how there is existence that is necessary, we can't know how that is explained but it isn't relevant for the logic.
OK, that's almost completely opaque or incoherent, but what I think you're missing is a fundamental of physics - everything that we see come into existence is just a rearrangement of what already existed.
We have no reason to suppose that the fundamental 'stuff', of which everything is made and remade, ever came into existence itself. As far as we know it has always been around - As I said previously, the idea that it could come from nothing is incoherent. IOW, it has necessary existence because it exists and can't not exist. Of course there are all kinds of metaphysical complications to do with time - whether it began, what that means, the arrow of time, and so-on, but I'm ignoring those.
Now, if you want to label the stuff that existed prior to the earliest time we can account for as 'God', you're welcome - no doubt Spinoza and Einstein would empathise. But that's very different from assertions of some vaguely anthropomorphic intentional agent with a grand plan.
Personhood can be an aspect of necessary existence, and then it does not need any millions of years, or any amount of time, to develop or evolve. And why would personhood evolve, in the material existence?
What is your justification for the assertion that '
personhood can be an aspect of necessary existence'? ISTM that personhood has evolved because it is a selective advantage in a social group of intelligent creatures to have a unified concept of self that can provide a characteristic and consistent social interface for others. There's more to it than that, but it's a start. The only personhood we have evidence for is associated with complex and sophisticated biological brains in complex and sophisticated bodies that are the result of 3.5 billion years of evolution of life.
In the same way that there are more things beyond any category of physical things there can and I say would be more than the category of physical things, and necessarily existence is beyond the category of all physical things, and beyond all the contingent things together. Necessary existence, not having limits, is everywhere, and if there is personhood with it, such as knowledge, and awareness, that is everywhere as well.
I'm afraid that's a barely coherent and unjustified assertion.
