MORAL objections to MORALS presuppose a moral standard.which results in ethical relativism

mY MORAL  objections to MORALS (which I have repeatedly stated) presupposes a moral standard. 

Since the New Atheists have denied the existence of any supernatural reality, this moral standard has to have a purely natural and secular basis. Many non-theists have located the natural basis for morality in human convention, a move that leads naturally to ethical relativism. 

This  appeal to a universal secular moral standard, a morals that overides morality,  raises some interesting philosophical questions. First, what is the actual content of morality? 

And what is the ontological ground of the universal moral standard? Given the assumption that ethical relativism is false, the question arises concerning what the objective natural ground is that makes it the case that some people are virtuous and some are not and that some behaviors are morally right and some are not. 

There is a wide concensus  view that our ethical intuitions have their roots in biology. 

Dawkins provides “four good Darwinian reasons” that purport to explain why some animals (including, of course human beings) engage in moral behavior. And though Dennett’s focus is on the evolution of religion, he is likely to have a similar story about the evolution of morality. One problem with this biological answer to our philosophical question is that it could only explain what causes moral behavior; it can’t also account for what makes moral principles true, however the counter argument is moral principles are not true,