But as we have seen above, evolutionary theory explains why we would think that moral judgments are objective.
1	But	but	CCONJ	CC	_	10	cc	10:cc	Discourse=attribution-positive:28->32:1
2	as	as	SCONJ	IN	_	5	mark	5:mark	Discourse=explanation-evidence:29->30:0
3	we	we	PRON	PRP	Case=Nom|Number=Plur|Person=1|PronType=Prs	5	nsubj	5:nsubj	Entity=(2-person-giv:inact-cf1-1-ana)
4	have	have	AUX	VBP	Mood=Ind|Number=Plur|Person=1|Tense=Pres|VerbForm=Fin	5	aux	5:aux	_
5	seen	see	VERB	VBN	Tense=Past|VerbForm=Part	10	advcl	10:advcl:as	_
6	above	above	ADV	RB	Degree=Pos	5	advmod	5:advmod	SpaceAfter=No
7	,	,	PUNCT	,	_	5	punct	5:punct	_
8	evolutionary	evolutionary	ADJ	JJ	Degree=Pos	9	amod	9:amod	Discourse=same-unit_m:30->28:0|Entity=(35-abstract-new-cf4-3-disc(36-abstract-new-cf3-2-coref
9	theory	theory	NOUN	NN	Number=Sing	10	nsubj	10:nsubj	Entity=36)
10	explains	explain	VERB	VBZ	Mood=Ind|Number=Sing|Person=3|Tense=Pres|VerbForm=Fin	0	root	0:root	_
11	why	why	SCONJ	WRB	PronType=Rel	10	obj	10:obj	Discourse=attribution-positive:31->32:0
12	we	we	PRON	PRP	Case=Nom|Number=Plur|Person=1|PronType=Prs	14	nsubj	14:nsubj	Entity=(2-person-giv:act-cf1-1-ana)
13	would	would	AUX	MD	VerbForm=Fin	14	aux	14:aux	_
14	think	think	VERB	VB	VerbForm=Inf	11	advcl:relcl	11:advcl:relcl	_
15	that	that	SCONJ	IN	_	19	mark	19:mark	Discourse=adversative-contrast_m:32->15:3
16	moral	moral	ADJ	JJ	Degree=Pos	17	amod	17:amod	Entity=(23-abstract-giv:inact-cf2-2-coref
17	judgments	judgment	NOUN	NNS	Number=Plur	19	nsubj	19:nsubj	Entity=23)
18	are	be	AUX	VBP	Mood=Ind|Number=Plur|Person=3|Tense=Pres|VerbForm=Fin	19	cop	19:cop	_
19	objective	objective	ADJ	JJ	Degree=Pos	14	ccomp	14:ccomp	Entity=35)|SpaceAfter=No
20	.	.	PUNCT	.	_	10	punct	10:punct	_
