Not quite, but, The Moral law is deeper. It is deep enough for us to think days and nights over, but never figure out, yet understandable enough for the tribal man to understand. You are correct, some people would figure Natural Moral law to be called something different, so their interpretation and naming of it would be different, but there is a standard. Murder, like I said, is a standard throughout the board. Killing without a reason is wrong and everyone knows it. So is stealing.
That there are universal codes of human behavior – from a historical standpoint – seems generally agreed upon. What isn’t agreed upon, of course, is whether these social taboos point to moral laws of the universe itself. Language, as well, is universal to human beings – as is artistic expression – but this may tell us more about our make-up as human beings, than about anything external to us.
The universal social prohibitions or taboos, as I see it, are:
–against murder (with exceptions that are still considered socially acceptable)
–against rape
–against stealing
–against incest (with exceptions that are still considered socially acceptable, such as among the rulers of ancient Egypt or, for that matter, the rulers of Europe; or in the allowance for Europeans and Americans, until fairly recently, to marry their first cousins)
–against cannibalism (the taboo of consuming one’s own species, again with exceptions – for example, the Carib Indians consumed the flesh of their
enemies)
–against mingling with outsiders (xenophobia); traces of this taboo against being different come out in the most mundane of ways, anything from anti-immigrant sentiment (“they take our jobs, they don’t speak our language”) to the uncanny ability of children to identify the “misfit” of the group and to gang up on him with merciless determination; it also may explain the taboo that existed in American society as regards the mixing of races
–against homosexuality (an elusive taboo – is it in the same class as the prohibition against incest, or is it more akin to xenophobia and fear of those who are different?)
–against certain foods (
which foods were taboo, was almost incidental)
In addition, the following appear to be nearly universal:
–male dominance (patriarchy, just as in the societies of most primates - the “alpha male”)
–social hierarchy and social inequality (the “pecking order” or the totem pole, whereby “all men are
not created equal”)
Some of these natural or seemingly innate aspects of human behavior seem profoundly social and constructive; others, ironically, appear anti-social and
destructive; or, merely, appear to be innate human prejudices. For example, food-related taboos have been done away with in our modern societies, for the most part, and the only manner in which we retain a semblance of these taboos is that certain foods are known to be healthy, others unhealthy. Other than this, the remaining dietary taboos are that against cannibalism, and the taboo – a new one, actually – against consuming domestic pets (which are an extension of the human family).
The tendency towards racism
may be innate in human beings – an innate xenophobia – but we now consider this an immoral tendency; our sense of morality ironically consists in overcoming this tendency to fear those who are different. With anti-immigrant sentiment, there are more rationalizations involved; as mentioned above, “they are a threat to the economy; can’t speak the language”–and it certainly doesn’t help if they
look different or alien, as well (the color of their skin, the way they dress, etc.).
As a side note, “I wonder why” is a statement rather than a question and therefore does not need a question mark; unless of course, along with subjective boundaries on morality, you are also in favor of subjective grammar and punctuation. I would warn you however, that if these rules aren’t followed, it becomes more difficult to be understood.
