What if the ends really do justify the means?
Human morality is based upon emotion, human morality is insulting, the obvious flaws in it are painful...
Human morality clearly states that it is better to steal food from two starving families than to let your own family starve. Logically if there is a lack of food and an abundance of humans your should add humans to food(not directly for various reasons...) until there is a perpetuation of the humans, or completely remove the humans as an impractical expenditure of resources. The end result is that you either end up with more, better off humans, or a far more robust system. The idea that humans are sacred is the pinnacle of both human morality and human evil...
Atrocities throughout human history have almost always involved making the victims appear less human, at which point the atrocities are humane by 'protecting the good civilised folk', or 'ensuring the purity of the species', or 'giving the gift of human civilisation to the savages' or even just uplifting them to a proper human democratic government if we need to level half their country to do it. Its not like it matters, they weren't properly living anyway...
Likewise virtue has always been more potent when applied to humans, killing a pet is worse then hunting, why? Because the pet is considered part of human society, the wild animal is just meat. Attempting to genocide entire kingdoms from your domain is considered virtuous in some quarters. Some people attempt to add all mammals to their 'human' category, becoming vegetarian or something. Some even try to protect the trees and insects. But the simple fact is that the path of morality doesn't lie in expanding your bias, it lies in abandoning it...