This argument presents a common critique of the evolutionary and cultural accounts of morality, suggesting that they fall short in explaining the universal and absolute nature of moral principles. Here’s a breakdown of the argument:

Premise: Morality is often explained as a product of human evolution and cultural development.

Flawed premise: The argument claims that this explanation neglects the universal and absolute nature of moral principles, implying that evolutionary and cultural factors cannot fully account for the existence of objective moral truths.

Alternative explanation: The absolute and universal nature of moral principles is more indicative of a divine moral lawgiver than a random process of natural selection. This implies that morality has a supernatural origin, with a higher authority establishing moral laws that are binding on all humans.

Motivation: The argument suggests that the desire to assert human autonomy and reject the idea of a higher authority drives the oversight in neglecting the divine origin of morality. In other words, proponents of evolutionary and cultural accounts of morality may be motivated by a desire to avoid acknowledging a divine moral authority.

This argument raises several points for consideration:

1. Universality of moral principles: The argument assumes that certain moral principles are universal and absolute across cultures and time. While this is debatable, it’s true that some moral principles, such as the prohibition against harming innocent people, appear to be widely shared.
2. Evolutionary and cultural explanations: Can evolutionary pressures and cultural development fully explain the emergence of morality? Critics argue that these factors can only take us so far in explaining the complexity and universality of moral principles.
3. Divine origin: The argument posits a divine moral lawgiver as an alternative explanation for the absolute nature of moral principles. This raises questions about the nature of this higher authority, its relationship to human morality, and how it interacts with human societies.
4. Motivations behind moral theories: Is the desire to assert human autonomy and reject a higher authority a driving force behind certain moral theories? If so, does this undermine their validity or simply reflect a particular philosophical orientation?

In response to this argument, proponents of evolutionary and cultural accounts of morality might counter that:

1. Moral principles can emerge through natural processes, such as reciprocity and cooperation, without requiring a divine origin.
2. The universality of moral principles can be explained by convergent evolution, where similar environmental pressures lead to similar moral adaptations across cultures.
3. Even if a higher authority is acknowledged, it’s unclear how this would translate into specific moral principles or laws.

Ultimately, the debate surrounding the origins and nature of morality remains complex and contested, with various philosophical, scientific, and religious perspectives offering competing explanations.