Allow me, for a moment, to look at our moral history. It is my contention that our Modernist forefathers were never consistent in seeking a basis for their morality. For the last 200 years we have been told that our existence is the result of a chance meeting of impersonal atoms that produced energy. I say energy instead of life because life would imply a meaningful existence. The Modernist never really believed that life is anything more than the impersonal movement of atoms bumping into one another.
Man is really no different from a rock.
If one rock happens to fall on another rock and crush it, no wrong has taken place. Those atoms merely moved in one direction rather than another. In a naturalistic world, such consequences cannot be called moral, or right and wrong. Yet for 200 years the Modernist has been lecturing us about everything from social justice to personal rights. He can't have it both ways.