How often must the wicked, bad or evil succeed in their plans to sequester even more wealth, power and influence for themselves; how many of the exceptionally good must ultimately fail - fail to stop them - before we can definitively conclude that there is no moral system at work anywhere in the universe? 

What are we to make of a 'world system' that churns with such relentless fervor to overturn our most basic human, or even sentient, impulses?

But, if we are also good empiricists, could we not admit that there might still be some overarching ethical structure inherent somehow in the very nature of material process, just not one that happens to coincide much, if at all, with anything like human ambition? 

The same observations could result in either case, or from any number of cases. 

Hume considered that the world would go on happily with or without us, and in terms of evidence there seems precious little to outright refute that idea. 

We may even derive some unexpected consolation from it: for which is worse? The mere fact that the good appear to fail and wicked to win, or the even more basic fact that the universe, taken as a whole, has absolutely no interest in the outcome of such meaningless contests?