That is a tough question, and I would say it depends on the topic first.
I have even argued there is no such thing as ‘moral’ outside of the Bible, rather equate morals to a perceived benefit as a moral. the only ‘good’ that is done outside of God, is all about the perceived benefit.
What about WW2. Is it moral to kill 200,000 people (women and children) if it was to save millions? (atomic bomb)
That is where perceived benefit plays a role. Our morals can, and are bent and changed by the society and culture we live in. Is it possible Hitler was moral? He clearly wasn’t right in his mind in thinking non-arian’s were inferior and less than human. But, if they were inferior and ruining the human race, would it not be a good and moral thing to kill them all? People claim they want world peace (I do not) because the ideal of world peace may be nice, attaining it would be horrendous, and maintaining it would be sick too. So should we just kill all the weird crazy violent people to attain world peace? Would that be moral?
We think child sacrifice isn’t moral, but is sure was fine to some cultures to get good crops or weather or some other kind of benefit perceived.
Trusting in the Father and His good will, that is moral and righteous. We don’t need to have pride and take matters into our own hands with such fervent zeal.
That being said, we should stand up for those who don’t have a voice, and we are Biblically called to. BUT not to the extent of hating others and ruining our main purpose to love our neighbors. God can use us as tools, but we need to remember He is in control and have faith and love as we pursue to protect those who can’t themselves.
But back to the question…
No, I don’t think there is such a thing as moral high ground, as morals are relative, so is the ‘height’ of that ground. That it is gets no one anywhere.
But I would argue that the majority of people do actually want the ‘good’ and ‘moral’ thing. The perceived benefit is a good thing. The problem there is we all perceive something different in our own minds.
This is why debates on many many topics need to have logic involved and tangible points to consider on both sides. Maybe even a trial period (a hypothesis and experiment and measure it) to see how well something works or doesn’t work. To analogize, almost like having the states try something and not have the federal gov interfere.
Like I have said in other threads. If you are born with blue glasses on and someone says the sky is blue. You think, no its not, its normal. It isn’t until you take those glasses off that you see it as blue. We need to be willing to see the other side, put on their glasses and want it to be right, try to prove it, play devils advocate. Then if you still disagree with ideals, that is fine (on some topics, politics and relationships need to be able to learn to compromise, not so much with ideals), but try to put on other glasses, and maybe you can then see what they see. I still don’t think you are right the sky is normal(it is blue), but, I see how you see it as normal. Both sides can learn a lot from that exercise.
I enjoy watching an educated atheist and Christian debate, I learn what makes atheist tick and learn much from the Christians too when logic and thought out points are used. I learn nothing from “You are stupid and weak to believe in a God, science proves you wrong.” Or" God says He is the only God in the Bible, so it must be true." That isn’t the moral high ground technique, but no logic or circular logic is just as frustrating to hear and no one learns anything from either, just like with ‘moral high ground’.
