We make the mistake that norms are in fact moral when they may in fact not be. We call norms moral just like we call legislation law. But norms may or may not be decidably moral and legislation and regulation may or may not be decidably law.
So positive normative moral pretenses, and negative objective moral prohibitions are very different things. We may not be able to say what is best but we can say what is worst. This is the purpose of all natural law: prohibition.
We spend most of our energies trying to rally numbers to different causes, so that we obtain the discounts of may hands making light work for large numbers. But we may rally to any cause one or another. At every given time there is a market for causes to rally in favor of.
However, when we say something is moral or immoral, it is not because of the positive ends it achieves, but because it is not a violation of moral limitations.
When you say “my portfolio of reproductive interests consists of set X, and your productive portfolio consists of set Y”, that means only that we cannot impose a POSITIVE demand on either person. We can only impose a NEGATIVE limit on both, so that they must trade to obtain what it is that they wish.
Evolutionary strategies are not equal but that does not mean that they are not compatible. They are compatible through compromise, not perfection. We seem to evolve toward nash equilibrium in everything we do. This serves evolution as well, since it shuts out the bottom.
So it’s true that morality is objective and universal. the problem is that objective and universal morality simply LIMITS what we can demand from each other while preserving cooperation.
It does not tell us what is good and we should do, only what is bad and we should not do.
That leaves exchange open to choose what is good for all as long as it is bad for none.
The Propertarian Institute