I'm pretty much going to echo what Demagog and a few others said on the first page. There is no universal good or evil. In nature, we are just another animal, and animals have instincts, not morality. Do you call a mosquito evil for biting you, or simply accept that that is part of their nature? However, generally speaking, a human being cannot exist independently. As Hobbes' famously put it, in nature--although we have complete freedom--we are at war with every other person, and our existence is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Therefore, we organize into societies. When you
choose to participate in a society, you implicitly agree to give up some of your natural freedoms in exchange for the benefits of a society (a "social contract"). For [an oversimplified] example, I can no longer just beat you up and take your stuff, but in exchange I receive some measure of protection from you beating me up and taking my stuff. This contract includes everything from obeying written law, to observing social mores (i.e., what is perceived as good and evil). What you are calling "evil" are mostly just people expressing natural freedoms beyond what is considered appropriate for society.
Also, the "Monkeysphere philosophy" is essentially the ethical system laid out in Ayn Rand's objectivism. A fancy name for it is ethical egoism, which is to say the closer I regard something (in terms of importance, not physical distance), the more value I place on it. For those things I consider too far away from me, I do not actively work for or against them. I simply let them be. Operating any other way would be impossible. Are you going to cry when a family member dies? Yes. Are you going to cry because someone died in China and they were also a human? No, because someone is always dying somewhere and you would never be able to stop crying. You have to limit what you allow to affect you, and choose what you consider important. It's not selfishness, it's just the fact we are an imperfect animal with limited capacities.
Reading what you are writing reminds me of a letter Camus wrote to a friend (who had recently joined the Nazi movement in WWII--no, I'm not comparing you to a Nazi.
):
"You never believed in the meaning of this world, and you therefore deduced the idea that everything was equivalent and that good and evil could be defined according to one's wishes. You supposed that in the absence of any human or divine code the only values were those of the animal world--in other words, violence and cunning. Hence you concluded that man was negligible and that his soul could be killed, that in the maddest of histories the only pursuit for the individual was the adventure of power and his only morality, the realism of conquests. And, to tell the truth, I, believing I thought as you did, saw no valid argument to answer you except a fierce love of justice which, after all, seemed to me as unreasonable as the most sudden passion.
Where lay the difference? Simply that you... readily accepted despair and I never yielded to it. Simply that you saw the injustice of our condition to the point of being willing to add to it, whereas it seemed to me that man must exalt justice in order to fight against eternal injustice, create happiness in order to protect against the universe of unhappiness. Because you turned your despair into intoxication, because you freed yourself from it by making a principle of it, you were willing to destroy man's works and to fight him in order to add to his basic misery. Meanwhile, refusing to accept that despair and that tortured world, I merely wanted men to rediscover their solidarity in order to wage war against their revolting fate.
As you see, from the same principle we derived quite different codes...you chose injustice and sided with the gods.
I, on the contrary, chose justice in order to remain faithful to the world. I continue to believe that this world has no ultimate meaning. But I know that something in it has a meaning and that is man, because he is the only creature to insist on having one. The world has at least the truth of man, and our task is to provide its justification against fate itself. And it has no justification but man; hence he must be saved if we want to save the idea we have of life. With your scornful smile you will ask me: what do you mean by saving man? And with all my being I shout to you that I mean not mutilating him and yet giving a chance to the justice that man alone can conceive."
Last, and off topic, if you truly like physics, don't let anyone talk you out of it. It's an amazing subject that I think has more potential than almost any other. If you don't mind me asking, why don't your parents want you going into it?
