I am not sure this all follows. For one when you say the core basics of morality develop very early what do you mean. Because moral intuition is so similar are you saying that everyone had a similar influence and upbringing. In fact research has shown that children don't learn about moral values and they have an innate knowledge of moral right and wrong. So if anything this points to as I have said that humans have a knowledge of morality like its some law of nature.
I was definitely not dismissing a genetic component to either morality or intuition, in fact it's quite likely. I was simply attempting to point out that the reason that they're so universal is because they develop so early, and that might well include a genetic component. But even at an early age there are likely experiential factors involved in our developing sense of morality. For example maternal attachment seems to play a key role in early development, and may alter how one views their attachment and empathy for others.
So can we agree that most people
begin with a common set of intuitive feelings/morals, and that the reason that they're so universal is because they develop so early?
Also as mentioned intuition is something that forms through experience and not in the first 3 years of life when we are learning language.
Again I would agree. I was simply using the development of language as a point of demarcation between the emergence of our more universal intuitions and that of our more individual intuitions. Learning language is a process who's final form begins to emerge after the age of three.
https://www.verywellfamily.com/how-do-children-learn-language-1449116
- Beyond 3 years: As they grow, children continue to expand their vocabulary and develop more complex language. Their language use doesn’t completely resemble adult language until around the age of eleven.
Also, this isn't to imply that language and reasoning are the only reasons that our intuitions diverge, but it's definitely a major factor because it allows us to formulate, exchange, and express ideas, which likely plays a key role in the development of our biases, and hence our intuition. However, experiences are probably still the major factor in why our intuitions diverge.
Intution comes with experiencing moral life and seeing how it pans out. If thats the case and morality is subjective similar to our "Likes and dislikes" for food then because people have such varied tastes for food the same logic would apply to morality.
No, as we've hopefully already agreed, our core intuition about such things as morality emerges before the age of three, which is why it's so universal. Our later experiences serve to augment and individualize our intuition, but we tend to call those later modifications biases, not morals. Intuition is simply a surreptitious way of revealing what we already believe. It's not some uncanny ability to discern some deeper truth.
But we don't see this. Instead we see an almost universal similarity where people intuitively react to moral situations in the same way.
Again I agree, but as we seem to have established, this universality is due to the fact that our core intuitions emerge quite early in our childhood development, if not before, so it's no surprise that they're similar. It's little different than our similarity in learning to walk or talk. Being amazed by this similarity is like being amazed that everybody has two hands and two eyes. Childhood development is a universal process that gives rise to a common set of traits, and one of those traits is morality.
But this doesn't make it objective, it just makes it common.