A thought-provoking assertion! Let’s break it down and examine the arguments.

The notion that morality is a product of human evolution and cultural development

This perspective, known as moral relativism or evolutionary ethics, suggests that moral principles are shaped by the process of natural selection, cultural norms, and historical context. This view posits that morality is not fixed or absolute but rather adaptable and variable across different cultures and time periods.

is a flawed premise

The argument against this notion is that it neglects the universal and absolute nature of moral principles. Proponents of moral absolutism argue that certain moral principles are inherent, objective, and apply universally, regardless of cultural or historical context. They contend that morality is not solely the product of human evolution or cultural development but rather reflects a deeper, transcendent reality.

that neglects the universal and absolute nature of moral principles

The criticism here is that moral relativism fails to account for the existence of universally recognized moral principles, such as the prohibition against harming innocent people or the importance of fairness and justice. These principles seem to transcend cultural boundaries and historical periods, suggesting a deeper, objective foundation.

and this oversight is often driven by pride

The accusation is that those who advocate for moral relativism do so out of pride, seeking to assert their autonomy and independence from a higher authority. This pride leads them to reject the idea of a divine moral lawgiver, preferring instead to believe that morality is a human construct.

as individuals seek to assert their moral autonomy and reject the idea of a divine moral lawgiver

This point suggests that the motivation behind moral relativism is not purely intellectual or philosophical but rather driven by a desire for self-determination and freedom from external authority. By rejecting the notion of a divine moral lawgiver, individuals may feel empowered to create their own moral frameworks, unencumbered by traditional or religious constraints.

In conclusion, the argument presented suggests that moral relativism is flawed because it neglects the universal and absolute nature of moral principles, and this oversight is often driven by pride and a desire for autonomy. However, proponents of moral relativism might counter that their perspective acknowledges the diversity of human experience and the complexity of moral decision-making, while also promoting empathy, tolerance, and understanding across different cultural and religious backgrounds. Ultimately, the debate between moral absolutism and moral relativism remains a contentious and ongoing philosophical discussion.