On the other hand, you're an evolved being with innate biases. There are solid natural reasons that most people share similar moral intuitions (read: emotions). If these intuitions did not exist, there would be no axioms from which to deduce other moral actions.

Brooks' premise is naturalistic, that man is more complex than an avatar of pure reason. I think he's right.

He just messes up and shows his ignorance/stupidity when he tries to say that "man is more complex then an avatar of pure reason" implies "the processes by which man was created are more than is understandable by pure reason". believe what you want but thats a shoddy piece of reasoning.

Strictly speaking, everything is more than is understandable by pure reason.

How so? Isn't it just a matter of having enough "reasoning power" and information? What do "everything" and "understandable" mean in this sentence?

"everything" might be more then is understandable by pure reason, i have to give you that.

"If these intuitions did not exist, there would be no axioms from which to deduce other moral actions."

It is mistaken to deduce morality from emotions, because (for one thing) emotions are largely a product of random chance. Emotions haven't been "validated."

Rather, we should deduce morality from reason and reality. We /ought/ to do what /is/ good for human life. (This isn't self evident, but I do think it's true.)

I essentially see this as an extension of the naturalistic fallacy. "we should surrender to human nature because it is better than anything human reason can come up with."

such claims are not new, and they are not right.