It is hardly controversial to state that neither prophetic calls to purity nor anguished hand-wringing have succeeded in advancement of the human species’ moral betterment. 

Since it is now clear that the diverging moral philosophies between the left and right are rooted in equally opposed views on what constitutes fairness, justice and liberty — where it be freedom of personal conduct, economic freedom, or freedom from want — and since it is equally clear that the moral philosophies guiding these advocates are founded in nothing more than barefaced assertion rooted in their proponents’ psychology, background and culture, it has become apparent that a new, empirically founded theory of moral philosophy is urgently required. Not even a complete disclaimer of the idea of moral principle has been sufficient remedy because of our apparent predilection to universalize our own views.

A question regarding how to arrive at an empirical basis for morality can be easily forgiven — after all, is not prescriptive morality foundationally rooted in revealed religion, natural law, genetics, evolution, or else in simple human kindness, sinfulness, original sin? It must be obvious to a dispassionate observer, from the above list, that morality can stem from no single fount. The failure of prescriptive moral systems to force humanity to conform to their strictures has been paramount for as long as men tried to force their views upon their neighbors. And yet, as human beings, we seem to need such moral systems to orient the compasses of our decisions. It follows that a new method for defining moral imperative — a method based on real, not imagined, human nature, if it were to avoid the pattern of prescribing unless we are to always build self-defeating, futile and sanctimoniusly hypocritical moralities — would be of great  benefit.

To define empirical morality, I would submit, we look for the essential liberties that always seep out from underneath the all-too-common waves of divers repressions. It seems clear that, no matter what efforts borne to bear to suppress them, we Homo sapiens require liberty to secure ourselves and our circle, to obtain a livelihood, to satisfy our sexual and risk-taking urges, to conduct commerce and enjoy its fruits, to rise to our natural social position within our milieu, to associate with those who are congenial to us, and to propagate our species. Regimes attempting, at huge cost, to suppress these liberties succeed only in driving suppressed behaviors into the waiting underworld, existing as it is solely because of the repression. The cost of this repression can be staggering, and not infrequently quite lethal to the promulgators.