those attempting to derive a universalized morality assume an underlying moral order
I don't see that any such thing is assumed. This reeks of Plato's theory of Ideals.
What is attempted in defining a moral order to invent a set of rules that, over the long term, produces a peaceful, productive, and stable society that keeps its members at least satisfied enough not to overthrow it.
Going back to your previous post:
Additionally, of course, the laws of physics or chemical structure of the universe are inherent, and the fact that
both sciences barely existed on a sound basis until Newton or Lavoisier, or that many major facts and theories
were discovered in the last one hundred years, does not prove otherwise. If I said: "for something inherent, they
certainly took a long time to emerge", I would be talking nonsense.......
BUT, prior to the human discovery of these laws (which is still underway) no one had a choice as to whether they obeyed the law of gravity or the laws of quantum mechanics. This was never optional. That's what "inherent" means in this context.
One always stood a good chance of getting away with a well-planned murder, though. So "Thou shalt not kill" is not inherent.
You might argue that humans were created so that they would create the Ten Commandments. That is suspiciously ex post facto. One can also argue that humans were created to murder each other. |
