"How does one research morality?"

well, one reads MANY opinions, both famous ones and plain ideas in the general literature. Then one tries to discern whether and to what extent those ideas are practiced in society; and throughout it all, one examines one's own belief system to see if it follows any of the common threads and whether it it comfortable, internally consistant and subject to practical scrutiny.

Of course, this process is seldom 'done' like this, and IF done, would move back & forth between 'research' and subjectivity....but it should be possible to apply studies and information to one's own situation to aid in decisions in life.

I did something like this...I didn't do it in one short, coherent burst of **research**, but I added up studies in comparative religion, psychology, physics, astronomy, philosophy, political science, sociology,...etc....plus my own experiences, and developed a view of morality.

Like Kant, I think it can be argued that some moral principles can be derived logically, and because I see so much variation in principles derived from various forms of authority, I don't feel that I can base my moral principles directly on any of them.

Therefore, I see a problem with the statement.."What is right or wrong doesn't admit of scientific discovery or explanation. It's a function of a society's religious and other BELIEFS." ...If an entire society believes it is 'right' to execute heretics, or circumcise women, or expose witches by dunking them in the river, I will have to disagree. These are INHUMANE acts based on flawed attitudes and superstition, and an educational system which allows members of a society to examine them critically and openly will eventually erode such insanity. The problem is, insanity which is more circumspect and less obviously harmful gets protected and/or ignored.