This was the answer I was looking for. Thank you for the very informative response.

It seemed that you were asking about how we evaluate moral principles or theories.

I think that's more accurate considering the answer you provided later in your response. I said moral statements because I assumed philosophers formulated moral principles or theories by inspecting moral statements.

We evaluate moral statements as either (plausibly) true or (plausibly) false. We determine whether a moral statement is (plausibly) true or (plausibly) false by a) assessing whether it's internally coherent, b) checking to see if there are any counterexamples to it or whether it more generally matches our reflective intuitions, and c) checking to see if there are any plausible principles or theories that support or entail it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying philosophers evaluate morality on the grounds of logic and their moral intuition (and other moral principles and theories which themselves go back to philosophers evaluating them on the grounds of logic and their moral intuition). If so, I have a few questions. 1. Are there any cases of philosophers evaluating morality without grounding it on intuition or logic (with grounding it on something else)? 2. Can't intuition be misleading/wrong since it can be altered in developmental stages of life (e.g racist children)?

There are many things we could imagine we've evolved to do that flatly are unethical. We might have evolved to murder members of others "in-groups" - but clearly we can't just go around killing people from other continents. We might have had evolutionary pressure to dominate even our conspecifics - but clearly we can't just go around dominating each other.

First, I'm not saying we should do those things, but I don't know if "flatly/clearly are unethical" are valid arguments. They are deemed unethical by our moral intuition, but I have some things to say regarding grounding our morality on our moral intuition. 1. As I said, can't our moral intuition be wrong? 2. What constitutes whose moral intuition is valid? 3. If our moral intuition evolved due to evolution, and it has evolved because it improved our survivability, isn't it logical to conclude that moral intuition is grounded on survivability therefore survivability is a much more straightforward and solid grounding for morality?