I agree that we cannot derive answers to subjective moral concerns from facts that are merely measurable. Restated, we cannot derive objective answers to politially moral questions. Once we agree on that, where do we look for guidance? One can look to strategies for how to gang up to take from others. One can look to hormonal urges and then contrive ways to gang up on others in order to take one's relief. And one can seek to intuit, conceptualize, and serve a non-measurable source for reconciling empathies.
The problem with god-seeking conceptualizations is that they can be so easily twisted and abused. People can feign belief merely to acquire advantage and control. People can become blinded by belief, so that they become less competent to deal with objective reality and more likely to lead themselves and others to ruin. And people can spend their lives searching for belief and find themselves never quite able to find it. Regardless, every person who leads with a functioning brain and who is confronted with choices has no choice but to make (moral) choices. Even a choice not to choose is a choice to allow the inertia of nature to choose. In making each choice, a person, on some level of consciousness, will have rationalized (moralized) the choice.
This is a problem for people who want to live consistent, principled lives. Some "resolve" the problem with drugs and diversions. Some resolve it with cheap mind tricks, resorting to unmeasurable "explanations" (via metas of metas of metas). The problem with those is that they can be applied to rationalize just about any specific choice a person finds himself wanting to make. Presently, I resort to a test of political morality, which is: Which program leads most directly to establishing and sustaining decent society for availing human freedom and dignity? I recognize that such a test cannot in itself withstand deconstructive analysis. It needs salting with metas. And so it goes.
That seems to fit the deconstructing noises we are now experiencing with the dis-assmilations of binding moral codes. The world is seeing so much deconstructive analysis that people are losing means for identifying with others, much less for cooperating with them. This needs only a few sparks to bring more rounds of holocausts. The world is searching hard for validation of a common objective ethos, but such an objective ethos is simply not there. If a reconciling ethos abides, it does not abide measurably. Rather, it abides in immeasurable good faith and good will. That, however, seems to drive militant atheists and good-timing diversionists right around the bend.