Here's what I've got:
What strikes me as a tautology is that the placement of moral value is dependent on the preferences of the placer. When you establish empirically that the placer and his preferences have been molded by the history of Earth, you realize that humanity has a fundamental, inbred desire to aid through action both the personal and general perpetuation of humans and human-like things.
We also have, through simple action, grown general modi operandi -- the justifications for which are, at their very most refined, contingent purely on the empirical data we have managed to accumulate -- for satisfying our fundamental human biases.
Some of these policies, like rogue tree branches, take needlessly indirect paths to light or turn uselessly back around on us. These policies are "evils" to diagnose, correct, and in severe cases, amputate. This process of diagnosis is morality, and this process of correction is practical agency.
Thoughts?
-
I think morality could possibly a mechanism designed by "nature" that enables a sort of stability within our species. We, as humans, are seemingly the most complex life forms on Earth, and so morality ensures that hugely dynamic nature doesn't grow into something that may lead to our downfall. The thing is, humans in general tend to only look at reason within our projection of reality, and not a "universal" one. The more and more complex an organism gets, the more complex the "mechanisms" required to stabilize that organism gets. However, these "mechanisms" do not always work out efficiently. We are rapidly evolving our view of the universe, and that in itself may adversely affect the "mechanism", and hence the subjectivity of morality may end up dividing our race. But, this is simply just an idea. EDIT: I'm pretty sure this has already been covered, but here it is anyway.