Reddit mentions of Neurobiology and the Development of Human Morality: Evolution, Culture, and Wisdom (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology)

I mean, I agree. But I don't see this as an issue.

You may not like Moral Nihilism (in reference to objective moral truths), but that doesn't make it any less true.

And just because I don't see any reason to accept an objective moral truth, doesn't mean I can't have subjective ones.

> This also means that in a man-made moral world, the goal of the oft-cited "human-flourishing" is, in fact, subjective, and is no more morally right or wrong of a goal than human suffering and destruction.

So? I am of the position that moral objectivity is nonsense. So to suggest that something is no less objectively morally right or wrong is a complete non-sequitur. I don't care, because I don't see any reason to accept any objective moral evaluations in the first place.

The reality of morality is this: humans have evolved as a social species and, as such, many humans share biological dispositions toward certain goals that help the species survive. (Here's a great book if you'd like to read up on this)

Ultimately, this results in a socially defined rule of "human prosperity" as the goal by which we make moral judgements. What "human prosperity" ultimately means is up to interpretation, and that's why we debate and have these conversations about what's right or wrong, what to enforce and how to enforce it, etc.

If you disagree, and act in a way that's in-line with that disagreement, then you will be outnumbered and dealt with.

The entire argument you seem to be making is an appeal to emotion. Just because people feel like they want there to be an objective moral truth, or that there should be one, doesn't mean that there IS one. It might be uncomfortable to say "wanting human prosperity and not wanting human prosperity are equally valid in terms of objective morality" just like it's uncomfortable to say "I will die one day." Discomfort doesn't make it any less true.