Locke and Moral Reasoning

One of the ideas that Locke becomes known for as a result of his belief that there is no such thing as innate human knowledge is the belief that human morals are not innate. The example that he draws on is that there is a disavowal of morality in some cultures. The only thing that is universal in human beings according to Locke is the desire to achieve happiness and to avoid misery. The idea that patterns of human conduct are found to be widespread and have some form of conformity with morality is only in virtue of a providential association of rectitude with some more short-sighted understanding of personal and public welfare. Besides all this, he still did not believe that there is anything about human morality that is universally acknowledged by all.
Besides all this, it is preposterous to claim that Locke was a moral relativist. Our current moral discourse is subject to the kind of perfect precision that should yield some possibility of demonstrable truth. Thus, moral truths are definable, because each of them signifies a mixed mode whose determinate content is made secure by its being created in the mind. Locke upheld the belief that careful attention to the complex ideas involved would result in some form of demonstrable form of human knowledge.