Claiming you are 'moral; does not give you a higher order coating of sanctity.

A NYT article is peppered with the word 'moral' from the outset. However the word 'moral' can be an ambiguously claimed virtue that gives the theory that one's behaviour is 'moral' where those opposed to you opinion is not 'moral'; in this way one attains, or believe they attain, a higher order coating of sanctity, This is a kind of Michelle Obama simplicity of 'you go low while we go high.' to this kind of claim and it is a familiar Liberal sort of humbug: invoking the authority of a higher-order, (moral stance). Why doesn't the journalist  indicate where morals are derived from Darwin might help here. So is moral judgment accomplished by intuition or conscious reasoning? An answer demands a detailed account of the moral principles in question; three principles guide moral judgments: (a) Harm caused by action is worse than harm caused by omission, (b) harm intended as the means to a goal is worse than harm foreseen as the side effect of a goal, and (c) harm involving physical contact with the victim is worse than harm involving no physical contact. I can envisage the amounts of recommends I will get for this comment, ZERO, Ah well, I am used to that.