@Dewey phil,
Dewey wrote:You're right, hue-man. I am not talking ontological absolutes. Indeed, I never intended to and, so far as I know, have not talked ontological anythings. You have. Sorry, I should have asked this before, but why have you introduced ontology into this discussion?
As you say, humanity needs a universal code of ethics. That's why the scientific findings and theories I have talked about are so exciting. The evolutionary process is believed to have equipped the human brain with an innate sense of morality. Goodness is believed to have been wired into the brain. The potential for universal morality is already in our brain and DNA. The brain is plastic. Maybe we can develop that potential. (Don't laugh. Think of Galileo.)
I have brought ontology into this debate because we are talking about science and the natural rightness or wrongness of actions. There is no question that most human beings have an innate moral sensibility, but that still doesn't provide a satisfactory ontological argument for morality. Some human beings are born with no moral sensibility at all, and we call these people psychopaths.
There is no innate rightness or wrongness to anything. Animals kill and eat each other everyday (including us), and while the predator may love the feeling of devouring the flesh of its prey, the prey hates the feeling of being in pain and being killed. The universe or nature is neither benevolent or malevolent, and so we can not say that because something feels bad (according to how we perceive it) that means that it must natural be bad.
I understand what you were saying now, I just wanted to get the ontological argument out of the way, because there is no compelling way that you can use the natural sciences to justify axiology. With that said, there is no question that the social sciences can provide meta-ethical justification for moral universalism.