In Defense of a Non-Natural Moral Order

[Acrobat]

...
I'm curious to hear others' thoughts on this?
...

Do you want the long answer or the short answer?

The short version is the definition of morality:

An evolved, human governance / continuity management system.
This system is an evolved extension (in the cognitive domain) of the pre-human immune system, endocrine and limbic system architecture and requires an ethical baseline (requiring memory), emotion-based thresholds, event-detection (e.g. deception detectors; a conscience) and reasoning (hence consciousness). It is enabled / influenced by chemical inhibitors and inducers and social constraints and drivers.

A longer answer would include the interaction of the individual and the environment. It's the latter that gives the illusion of 'objective'.

If you want a complete answer, it would involve algorithms (how we get from sense data to ethics) and a tentative map of the above mentioned 'ethical baseline', which hints at an explanation for transcendence, holocausts etc. Lemme know if you're up for that level of detail.

Evolution accounts for all the biological sensory components that recognize objective things, like my ability to see the table, feel its weight, etc.. are all a product of evolution, but the table, the object being perceived, nor the good, are the product of evolution.

---

I thought we've already discussed this?

Morality is what I say is right.
Immorality is what I say is wrong.

Which is about as true, as saying the earth is round, because I say you.