Moral Naturalism

[Veritas Aequitas]

Two thoughts.

1 Consequentialism merely kicks the deontological can down the road. The morality of an action's consequences is as much a matter of opinion as the morality of the action itself.

2 Flash is right about ethical naturalism. The mistake is always the same: work forwards from a moral premise, or backwards from a moral conclusion; then forget where you started; then 'find' morality intrinsic in nature.

The primary focus with morality is not about deontology nor consequentialism.

It is from the observation of nature and human nature that it is observed there is a regular pattern of human activities that the majority recognized as a sense of 'morality' or ethics.
Typically this morality/ethics is about 'right' and 'wrong' conduct; while this serve some purpose in varying degrees, the terms are too loose and less precise for moral progress.

So there is a regular pattern of human activities in nature and human nature which humans since its origin has a sense as morality or ethics ['whatever name of the rose'].
I argued these regular human activities which has vague purposes are actually potentials that can drive humanity toward perpetual peace in the future.

Since science [naturalism] has been successful in determining various other sets of regular pattern of human activities in nature and human nature [biology, neurosciences, psychology], so, it is possible to study this peculiar set of regular pattern of human activities in nature and human nature which is recognized typically as morality or ethics.

It scientific naturalism can reduce all sort of facts [from observation] to natural facts, the same can be done for regular patterns of human activities supposedly related to morality and ethics.

I have given one example, i.e. why incest is a moral taboo for the majority is because it can be reduced to the natural biological fact of "inbreeding avoidance".
There are many other supposedly moral elements that can reduced to natural facts [biological or otherwise].

In the past, Hume's IS-OUGHT, Moore's Naturalistic fallacies are based on dated classical logic and immature thinking which has hindered moral progress within humanity. Due to their shallow thinking, they have branded certain human activities as non-natural.

The quest in the modern era is the identify those regular patterns of human activities in nature to establish objective moral facts which can be used as standards to guide moral progress.

Your refutation that 'moral is not objective' is grounded on desperate psychological to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonance and your and the like thinking has contributed hindrance to moral progress within humanity.

Moral Naturalism [parallel with scientific naturalism] grounded on nature is the way forward toward perpetual peace.