I'm with Kant, warts and all. The question of morality seems to me to disappear up Godel's butt. If it's a coherent system, then there are things about it that cannot be proven in it. So finding flaws is hardly a reason to reject best approximations.

Godel says to me that deontic ethics must fail. But the categorical imperative is essentially situational and aretaic: do what a good person would do. There is actually some research that suggests we have a genetic disposition to a certain amount of altruism - our selfish genes benefit from mutual sacrifice - but that's really beside the point. If we take Kant as a guide, then seeking to understand virtue is itself a virtue - wouldn't we want everyone to want to be a better person?

Our parents can help by teaching us what they've learned about how good people behave, but that's not "learning" morality; it's taking a short-cut to some bits of virtue. If we assume all inquiry involves confirmation vel non of some default state of knowledge, good parents will give their children the most durable default assumptions. At least, that's what I would have all good parents do.