That would rather depend on what you define to be points A and B, wouldn't it?
Why, precisely, is it "wrong" for someone to inflict pain upon you? Why, precisely, is it "wrong" for you to inflict pain upon another person?
As to the first question, I can no more objectively describe what makes it wrong than I can objectively describe pain in the first place. The question more or less answers itself, for anyone who understands what pain is. If someone does it to you, you know why it's wrong. And the answer to the second question is but a very quick extrapolation of the answer to the first.
You don't have to care more about survival of the species than about doing right by your neighbor - if you do right by your neighbor, survival of the species follows as a consequence.
Speculation, wishful thinking. It may be true in most cases. And sure, helping the species survive is of course one way of doing right by your neighbor. But not all things that promote optimal survival prospects for the species from a purely utilitarian perspective, would necessarily involve doing the right thing to people. Fascists wanted society to be arranged like the human body, with defective "cells" regularly eliminated. Maybe such a plan, if people were to accept it, truly would have made for a more durable society. But they weren't willing to accept it - and nor should they have, as you seemed willing to agree earlier.
A) pain exists. B) pain is wrong. Like that ;)
As to the first question, I can no more objectively describe what makes it wrong than I can objectively describe pain in the first place.
No, no - wait a moment. Forget the semantics of it for a moment, forget about the ambiguities present in such a thing. I'm not asking for an objective definition, where you express it in such a way as to cause me to fully understand and know it in the sense that you know it. Forget about persuading me for a moment - I promise that I will take whatever you say at face-value in this. Forget about me understanding why it's wrong for someone to inflict pain on me, just tell me why it's wrong for someone to inflict pain on you.
Don't worry about explaining it to me or persuading anyone of the truth of what you say for a moment. Instead, give me your subjective take on it, your own explanation of why it is wrong for someone to inflict pain upon you. Don't worry about what I think, just lay it out in a way that seems plausible to you - IOW, forget "obective" for a moment, and just give me your subjective opinion.
I don't care if you can "prove" the truth of what you say, I'm just interested in what you have to say. So, let me rephrase a bit - Answering in any way you see fit, why do you feel that it is wrong for someone to inflict pain upon you?
Speculation, wishful thinking. It may be true in most cases. And sure, helping the species survive is of course one way of doing right by your neighbor.
That's not quite what I meant, that we do right by our neighbors when we promote the survival of the species. What I meant was that by most conventional understandings of morality, survival of the species results from the practices contained therein.
IOW, by following those proscriptive rules of morality (setting aside where exactly those rules come from for a moment), the survival of the species is promoted. Don't steal. Don't be envious. Don't murder one another. And so forth - when you do right by your neighbor in that completely conventional sense, survival of the species is promoted as a result. That's what I want to get at - you don't even have to think about something abstract like "survival of the species". It inevitably follows from morality itself, barring external events, of course ;)
Fascists wanted society to be arranged like the human body, with defective "cells" regularly eliminated. Maybe such a plan, if people were to accept it, truly would have made for a more durable society. But they weren't willing to accept it - and nor should they have, as you seemed willing to agree earlier.
Perhaps people weren't willing to accept it because it was hazardous to the survival of the society - certainly it was hazardous to many of the individuals within it. It's kind of hard to build a viable society that is predicated on mass-murder, as we have seen (too) many times.