The endeavor to reconcile moral law with ambition shows that we cannot live by absolute, abstract principles. We need to relate them to life and human needs — and our best judges and juries do just that. The nature of the world doesn’t lend itself easily to bipolar, either-or, types of determinations. The cure has always rested in the long-range service of humanity — and this is true even when people apply what they imagine are “absolute” standards. There is nothing to be feared from the loss of absolutes.
How to get by with less than absolute points of reference. By involving and solving the age old riddle between good and evil. What purpose does the good or the evil serve in a human being? It relates to the fact that without living beings with needs, there can be no good or evil. And without the presence of more than one such living being, there can be no rules of conduct. Morality, then, emerges from humanity precisely because it exists to serve humanity. Theology attempts to step outside this system, even though there is no need (beyond coercion) for such a move. Trial-and-error efforts to sharpen laws, render institutions more effective, and fit moral principles better to improved knowledge of human nature continues. Morals are in large part a product of our common emotional responses, thereby allowing us to propose improvements in those morals by making appeals to the feelings of our fellows. Once confirmed, they are the laws of the governed. And, if it is possible for people to develop laws and impose those laws upon themselves, then it is possible to do the same with morality. As in law, so in morals; the governed are capable of rule because of their lived experiences. Giving voice to moralities are what inform the foundation of non-violence which is understood as a law of our being.