Morals and legal norms are developed from the biological origin of social behavior

According to Honneth, Foucault's view on Nietzsche's will to power was that morals and legal norms are "historical variable superstructures." I disagree, these social superstructures are developed from the biological origin of social behavior, which is "limited" by our biologically derived human nature. Why is that so hard to affirm? In Foucault's case did he push an amoral power force to better allow for the deviant behavior he preferred? Where does integrity come from? Are all philosophies biased by the biography of the philosopher? Philosopher's block truths as readily as do the marauding capitalists they hate.

There is flexibility and freedom within the genetic limits of human nature, but it does not affirm most ideologies. The biological origin of our social behavior actually ends the intellectual defense of postmodern relativism, as well as the culturally Marxist ideologues. But it also takes some of the virtue-signaling away from the spiritualism of conservatives.

The reality points toward the political/cultural solution of the an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. This is the sociopolitical/cultural structure most in harmony with real human nature, which developed tens of thousands of years ago and is still with us today. In our increasingly crowded world an ethnopluralism of ethnostates looks like the most equitable and natural way for "us all to get along." The challenge will be in protecting the independence of ethnostates from marauders on the left or the right. That was the challenge the founders of America faced with the Constitutional separation of powers and states, which could be reaffirmed and expanded to ethnostates.