How can we infer an objective morality from the laws of reality/physics?
Some might question what is real, but if they are unsure that anything is real, then we have no fundamental premise upon which to establish any agreement. There must be, at minimum, an agreement that there does exist something real. Then the fun begins, because we must define reality. We can propose a few variations:
Each of this is a proposed agreement.
It ust exist, and it is must be understandable. Just as we learn through geometrical, or better, spatial reprenestation and abstraction, there is a structure to morality in the sense that we understand the capacity of human experience to include pain and suffering, and we represent it in our visual cortexes. Though we cannot know an experience without it being our own known experience, we can do such things as compare two imaginary experiences, or compare analogs to experiences. Ultimtaely, we need to find a way of always conceptualizing someone's direct experience, and not a group representation's pseudoexperience.
Again, though it seems our understanding of morality and ethics come about through human experience and the coniciding forms within their social context in consideration of pain, suffering and death, we must ask ourselves: are the spatial transformations taking place among those high level events simply incidental? What are the fields of observation along which tragedy and evil occur?
Global (migration patterns), Solar system (supernovae), black holes, asteroid/comet impacts and gravitational influence, small planetary collision, galactic events (black holes, quasars, neutron stars, galactic collisions). Untold tragedy outside one's cognitive grasp.
We must understand our general conceptions of morality as well as the in-depth manner in which we come to possess a sense of morality, and juxtapose this against the laws of physics and the naturally inherent phenomena which destroy, create and transform.