Universal morality s
A universal morality is a description of right and wrong or natural and unnatural according to the operation of the universe or laws of universal operation as they are known.
In philosophy, universal morality is a system of right, aka “Vita” arrival, in mythological-etymology speak, and wrong, aka “Mor” arrival, in mythological-etymology speak, defined according to universal operation, and or the laws of the universe; a system of morality defined universally.

Overview
In 1711, Anthony Shaftesbury, in his Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions and Times, outlined some type of system of species within species universal moral goodness; the gist of which is as follows: [1]

“Shaftesbury’s view of virtue is part of his larger view of goodness. Something is good, according to Shaftesbury, if it contributes to the “Existence or Well-being” of the system of which it is a part (C 2.18). Every animal is a part of its species. So a particular animal, say a tiger, is a good member of its species—it’s a good tiger—if it contributes to the well-being of the tiger species as a whole. There is also “a system of all animals”, which consists of the “order” or “economy” of all the different animal species (C 2.19). So a good animal is one that contributes to the well-being of “animal Affairs” in general (C 2.19). The system of all animals, moreover, works with the system “of Vegetables, and all other things in this inferior World” to constitute “one system of a Globe or Earth” (C 2.19). So something is a good earthly thing if it contributes to the existence of earthly things in general. And the system of this earth is itself part of a “Universal System” or “a System of all Things” (C 2.20). So to be “wholly and really” good a thing must contribute to the good of the universe as a whole (C 2.20). This progression of ever-larger systems is a bit dazzling, and we might wonder how we can know (or even make sense of) whether something is contributing to the well-being of the universe as a whole. But Shaftesbury avoids this problem by discussing in detail only that which makes “a sensible Creature” a good member of its species—by focusing on whether an individual creature is promoting the well-being of its species (C 2.21). Perhaps Shaftesbury believes that a creature that contributes to the well-being of its species will also always contribute to the well-being of the universe as a whole, in which case being a good member of one’s species would be coextensive with being “wholly and really” good. The goodness or evilness of a sensible creature, according to Shaftesbury, is based on the creature’s motives, and not simply on the results of the creature’s actions (C 2.21–22). This leads to a crucial claim: every motive to action involves affection or passion (C 2.40–44). Reason alone cannot motivate (C 2.28–52, 77–81).”

In 1785, Immanuel Kant posited his so-called categorical imperative, the gist of which is: “act that your conduct may be taken as a universal law”.

In 1809, Goethe, in his Elective Affinities, and later via commentary on this, stated that what is “moral” in nature and society is found within the moral symbols of affinity chemistry, aka physical chemistry, in modern speak, i.e. the laws of thermodynamics in root sense.

In 2011, Libb Thims, in his “Thermodynamic Proof that Good Always Triumphs over Evil”, and later in his "Zerotheism for Kids" (2015) atheism class, explained, building on Goethe, how free energy and coupling theory explain natural from unnatural, whether in society or nature, in a universal sense, i.e. according to the combined law, as exergonic and endergonic, respectively, acts or processes.

References
1. (a) Shaftesbury, Anthony. (1711). Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions and Times (Ѻ). Publisher, 1737.
(b) Shaftesbury (2016) – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2. Thims, Libb. (2011). “Thermodynamic Proof that Good Always Triumphs over Evil”, Journal of Human Thermodynamics, 7: 1-4.

External links
● Moral universalism – Wikipedia.

TDics icon ns