"Order" as a universal probably should not be the chief goal for humanity. (And hyper attention to order does seem to work against us a lot of the time--race, class, gender, etc..) However, at least some of the time, an action that causes disorder or chaos can be judged negatively solely by virtue of its having caused a rupture in some type of systematic, or perhaps just relatively unchaotic, existence. For example, a bomb that disrupts the continued, orderly existence of some discrete portion of spacetime (all a sort of heightened way of saying: "a bomb that, once dropped, destroys a relatively ordered patch of existence, such as, for instance, a city") might be determined to be negative given its rupturing of the safety of relative stasis. What we see, though, is that it all depends on whether we can draw neat lines like this in our determination of the morality of such an event. It happened to work well this time---the atrocities of the dropping of the bomb can all be encapsulated under the conceptual umbrella of "rupturing stasis", since in this case the idea of stasis is the maintenance of life itself. (Importantly, the "maintenance of life itself" depends upon the continued existence of its form of stasis relative to the other potential chaotic states of the universe. Meaning, more briefly, that life can only continue if it remains stable in relation to the forms of physical chaos around it. Which in turn, then, means that the maintenance of relative stability is at least mostly equatable here with the continuation of life itself. ) So overall, I think we should be mixed on this opinion. Sometimes our judgement of morality based on capacity to cause disorder or chaos seems to follow; other times it won't be as neat.