You're politicizing meta-ethics. What does the naturalistic fallacy have to do with conservatism? I call things like I see them.

Sciences objectify whatever they touch. The universe they present is therefore amoral. So there are no values in objectified nature. Scientific theories alone don't justify any evaluation or assessment of right or wrong.

Would you say human rights are objective? Can you explain how that's so without saying anything oxymoronic or fallacious?