A thought-provoking argument! You’re suggesting that the idea that morality can be derived solely from human reason is incomplete because it overlooks the universal and absolute aspects of moral principles. This oversight, you propose, stems from pride and a desire for moral autonomy, leading individuals to reject the notion of a divine being that establishes moral laws.

This perspective raises several interesting points:

1. Universality and absoluteness of moral principles: You imply that certain moral principles are universally recognized and absolute, transcending cultural and personal variations. This is a contentious issue, as some argue that morality is relative and subjective, while others believe in objective moral truths.
2. Limitations of human reason: By emphasizing the role of pride in rejecting divine morality, you suggest that human reason alone is insufficient to fully grasp moral principles. This implies that there may be aspects of morality that are beyond human comprehension or require a higher authority to establish.
3. The appeal of moral autonomy: You argue that individuals often reject divine morality to assert their own moral autonomy. This raises questions about the nature of free will and personal responsibility in relation to moral decision-making.

Some potential counterarguments to consider:

1. Evolutionary explanations for moral principles: Some might argue that moral principles have evolved through natural selection, cultural development, or social contract theory, making them purely human constructs without the need for a divine component.
2. Cultural and historical variability of morality: Others might point out that moral principles have varied across cultures and throughout history, suggesting that they are relative and context-dependent rather than universal and absolute.
3. The problem of evil and divine morality: If a divine being is responsible for establishing moral laws, why do we observe evil and suffering in the world? This challenge to the existence of a benevolent deity could undermine the idea of a divine moral lawgiver.

Overall, your argument highlights the complexity of moral philosophy and encourages us to consider the potential limits of human reason in understanding morality.