In Defense of a Non-Natural Moral Order

[John 6IX Breezy]

I'm not sure I understand your question. You mean of what use is a moral umbrella if people don't agree on the details?

Pretty much.  Suppose for the moment that such a moral umbrella exists.  Further suppose that it covers 1000 actions which may be moral or immoral.  If entire cultures disagree on which acts fall where, isn't your umbrella more of a sieve?

Boru

I think a distinction needs to be made between the question of do we have a moral umbrella and how useful is it. One observation that leads me to believe we do share an umbrella is to look at instances where people believe we've made moral progress, for example, that we are more moral in the present day than previous generations that committed immoral acts such as slavery. However, although the idea of slavery did evolve, the concept of freedom or liberty didn't; it merely expanded to include or exclude different instances. Or take the concept of killing; most people, I would assume, agree that killing is wrong. However, everyone differs on when and where and how and why killing is wrong.

Examples such as these lead me to believe that we have moral umbrellas that are generally fixed across time and cultures; the biggest overarching umbrella is morality itself, the sense that there is right and wrong. We are a moral species, and one could easily imagine an alternative scenario where we don't share such a notion. 

As to the usefulness, it may not have any. Although, if such umbrellas are real then I'm sure theres an evolutionist out there ready to give it a use in survival or reproduction.