Jungle Law

i.e. resolving Conflicts by might makes right

• A is stolen from the mightier B
• the even mightier C wants to then steal from B
• B cannot object to this since this would be a contradiction and would infer rights now magically exists
• {A,B,C...Z} therefore can make no defence, and just live like animal-beasts (whim-worship)

This law of the jungle ethic then is reduced to whim-worship but Ethics relies on some epistemological premises and metaphysics.
So what would be the ethic's whim-worship justification?

Remember, law deals with resolving conflicts, and the law of the jungle asserts, "Who gives a damn?", do as you please, live by your arbitrary whims.

If we take this seriously, then whims are to be a genuine source of knowledge which boils down to "I think this is true because I feel like it is!" i.e. The epistemology of the law of jungle ethic.

What does metaphysics does this epistemology then rely on? The premise asserted above is basically saying if you think it to be true then it is true, that really your consciousness is the basis of reality.
This is the fallacy of the Primacy of Consciousness, i.e. consciousness cannot be the primacy of reality since existence precedes consciousness, (Primacy of Existence).
i.e. You have to be conscious of something, it is not stand-alone. That something therefore has to exist in the first place and whether or not you to perceive it.
Meaning existence as a whole exists, taking correct primacy over consciousness.

This then means all whim-based ethics are simply false ideas that are unworthy of any consideration.