Is there a name for a position on the origins of morality that is compatible with the following:
- "Good" and "bad" are not intrinsic properties of actions.
- The purpose making a moral judgment is to encourage or discourage the certain actions.
- The convergence of a moral judgment for a given action is faster when that action causes a bigger disruption in the daily life of the individual/group, that is, the judgement of very disruptive actions is agreed upon faster than the judgment of actions that cause little or no disruption.
Background: I was wondering how a individual/group could arrive to a set of "values" -- which I think of as shortcuts or predefined rules -- that help keep stability in the daily functioning of the individual or group.
My current thinking is that morality arose as a means to minimize friction/disruption within an individual -- individuals judging their own actions --, or within a group.
Over time, the judgements accumulate and the individual/groups starts creating categories and quick rules on how to classify actions that have not been encountered before. These "quick rules" or shortcuts is roughly what we call "values". The divergence of values among individuals/groups would appear naturally as a consequence of the differences in experiences.
I don't know the literature on morality and what I'm asking here is just some pointers to literature that disproves this idea of morality as friction/disruption minimizer or that supports it.