Thanks for the question :)

Practically? Yes. I think we have to think this way. It's what all people are under the practical delusion that they can achieve. We are limited and all organisms are an ordered collection of impulses. I don't think we could fully embrace chaos if we even wanted to.

Theoretically? No. All ordered systems will be built out of perception bias of the creators. They are built to ensure that some things that hurt the group they are appealing to are condemnable. But this is a reaction to those things existing to begin with.

For example, to say "murder is bad" helps the vast amount of people in society, but this is only a declaration because there are instances in which murder happens (which means the actor felt justified). This claim of "order" will hurt the murderers. Is this a good thing? Society says yes... for good reason, it generally helps them. But it doesn't help everyone. This is an extreme example that I'm using to make your case, but even in this extreme example I think you can see that the harm still exists. For lesser cases it would just happen more so.

I hope this follows.

No, In fact I would submit the opposite. It is only by rejecting that the accepted truth is correct can the most just systems come forth. I expanded on this within my own post, but I will link it here for convenience.

The only logically valid morality is to embrace chaos when possible. (explanation below)
tldr;
Order is only a virtue for those that are comfortable within that order.
It directly follows that supporting order will inherently invalidate and perpetuate the harm and suffering of the vulnerable which is immoral.
It follows form that that it is moral to embrace the lack of order when that order is critiqued (aka: chaos).
More explicitly:
We all have perception bias and we all seek to promote our own survival. This will inherently cause us to create ordered systems for purposes of protectionism and with predictive capabilities (even if the predictions have to be manufactured). But - except in rare cases - these will only be accepted if it can be used by influential people to become more influential. This will lead to manufactured truths and outright intentional misinterpretations all to support the current "order".

Since these "myths" will be promoted more than "critiques", it cannot be known what positive knowledge (aka "truth" or "a defense of order") is valid. If these positive assertions are to be accepted as "objective", then no amount of suffering will be valid in light of these "truths".

Or - said more practically - essentialization of knowledge is at best ignorant, and at worst malicious.

The only alternative then is to accept that "I don't know" or (when known) "that specific truth is incorrect" will be more advantageous to social equality than defending the order that we are all inherently desire. So, valuing chaos over order is ultimately a "moral good".

This isn't to say that order can be removed. In fact quite the opposite: we are ordered beings. Life is ordered, so our self preservation demands that we create narratives to understand the chaos that surrounds us. While we inherently do this practically (picking the narratives that promote our survival and success the most), it is never justified except through a selfish perspective.

If you find any flaws with this reasoning, please let me know. Thanks for your interest.