A Case for Inherent Morality

[Belacqua]

Natural selection and evolution are well founded and I certainly accept them, but not a genetic code for morals, not without evidence.

I reread the OP, you use 'I believe' seven times and only provide justifications for the beliefs. I'm stating that your beliefs and justifications are not convincing.

In one of your posts you said that you read some psyc studies claiming infants/toddlers demonstrated the ability to recognize good and bad actions. I remember something about that too. It is suggestive that the infants had an inborn sense of right and wrong.

I don't know how young you're going here, but infants and toddlers have already gone through some serious development. 

In the old days there were theories about the stages of development. Maybe these are outdated now. But they used to say that the first feelings of which a newborn is aware are "pleased/displeased." When he's hungry he's displeased, when he's feeding he's pleased. When he's cold and wet he's displeased, when he's warm and dry he's pleased. 

This is not at all a moral distinction. It is about his own comfort. Freud called this proto-narcissism. 

Some people said that the earliest imposition of "ought/ought not" thinking comes with toilet training. This is when kids get the idea that one way to behave is a bad way resulting in maternal disapproval, and another way is a good way resulting in approval. 

Maybe there is training in "ought/ought not" that comes in even earlier than toilet training. I don't know -- like when the kid bites mommy's nipple too hard she withdraws it, resulting in a bad feeling for the kid. Even this is not morality, though. It's just "if I do this I don't like the result." Which is selfish, not moral.