The point ultimately is morality comes from our consideration towards potential events beyond what's actualized. If we deny this, then we deny the value of the future, how the past exists despite how we don't know everything about it, and the capacity for alternate feasible timelines.
After all, just because we live in a timeline doesn't mean we live in the timeline. There's a difference between singular and unified thought.
The problem in discussing this is not the truth of the matter but rather the social politics of the matter. People compromise on understanding the entirety of time because they exploit sufficient understandings of it before complete understandings of it. After all, time takes attention to understand, and the less you can understand it while grasping greater yields, the better.
This isn't a thought process that only exploiters of understanding utilize either. Those genuinely curious apply it too because they know there's always more to understand out there, so they want to investigate the most valuable branches and roots of time's nature.
The difference between exploiters and investigators is exploiters accuse others of being utopian to disguise their own utopianism while putting the accused on the defensive and exposing them to false convictions which they have to defend about.
Investigators, on the other hand, are genuinely committed towards understanding the reality of how time flows in order to figure out how to use it. They have real applications in mind, but know that to execute those application, ideas must be grasped to execute them.
When we understand these ideas, we call this understanding morality due to the unpredictable chaos of reality. That chaos must be ordered or else our efforts go splat in vain...
...but exploiters don't care about this. They're motivated by drama. They love the uncertainty and how it harms real people.
Until we admit that morality is real via philosophy of time, this exploitation will continue.