adjective: present at birth but not necessarily hereditary; acquired during fetal development
Here's another:
adjective: possessed at birth; inborn; possessed as an essential characteristic; inherent. [American Heritage Dictionary]
In this last, the main point is that something that is innate is essential to the nature or make-up of the person or thing in question. That is to say, it is not something acquired later on or, as a philospher might say, it is not an "accident" pertaining to the person or thing in question. "Innate" is distinguished from both "congenital" -- which is applied principally to physical characteristics, especially to defects acquired during fetal development -- and "heredity"-- which refers to what is genetically transmitted to the person or thing in question.
But if innate stands for something that is neither congenital nor hereditary, to what can it possibly refer? I submit that natural science has no method to determine this. And so if a scientist wants to speak of that which is "innate," and then found a moral theory on it, he is completely free to do so; but then he would not be speaking as a scientist, but as a philosopher. And if the scientist in question is a scientific materialist, a/k/a a metaphysical naturalist, he has no way to speak of "essence," or an "essential characteristic," which is the principle meaning I take from the word "innate."
I am not aware of any explanation given by science that could account for any building up of configurations of non-living material particles or building blocks that lead to an "essence" (or life for that matter) in the manner that word is used in philosophy. In philosophy, "essence" and "nature" are closely cognate.
I'm not saying you aren't free to be a philosopher and speculate about moral theory if you want to. I'm just asking you to recognize that if you are doing that, your speculation cannot be deduced from the premises of methodological or metaphysical naturalism, i.e., scientific materialism.
In short, you are producing a "just-so story" that isn't even systematically founded on your own doctrine. And this is why I find your moral theory unpersuasive, to say the least.
Utimately, you want to derive your moral theory from science. But as Jerry Fodor writes, "Science is about facts, not norms; it might tell us how we are, but it couldn’t tell us what is wrong with how we are. There couldn’t be a science of the human condition."
Mankind historically has left that sort of thing up to philosophy and theology.
Your post is an exercise in sophistry and doesn’t deserve a response. If however you should stick to what I said I meant by the word innate, maybe I’ll look at the next one.
Neither absolute moral law nor objective truth can be discerned by looking at a narrow section of the whole.