{"id":483422,"date":"2021-06-02T11:47:02","date_gmt":"2021-06-02T15:47:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/newscenter\/?p=483422"},"modified":"2021-06-02T11:51:36","modified_gmt":"2021-06-02T15:51:36","slug":"theres-hope-for-objective-moral-standards-but-how-can-we-better-live-up-to-them-483422","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/newscenter\/theres-hope-for-objective-moral-standards-but-how-can-we-better-live-up-to-them-483422\/","title":{"rendered":"There\u2019s hope for objective moral standards\u2014but how can we better live up to them?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In responding to news of hate crimes, mass shootings, police brutality, or discriminatory policies, many of us react with moral indignation. We see these things as violating core principles concerning the inherent worth and rights of persons\u2014moral principles that seem to be objectively true, not mere matters of taste or convention.<\/p>\n

But does science leave room for such philosophical ideas, or does it instead explain them away as illusions stemming from our evolutionary conditioning? And if it does leave room for them, can it shed light on how human beings might better live up to objective moral standards?<\/p>\n

In an article<\/a> in the magazine of science and culture Nautilus<\/em>, William FitzPatrick<\/a>, the Gideon Webster Burbank Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy at the Ä¢¹½´«Ã½<\/a>, accomplishes two aims. First, he lays out a case for hope that there is indeed \u201can objective and universally true human morality\u201d (albeit one that still allows for nuance and variations according to circumstances across cultures). Second, he considers whether, given the global rise of tribalism and nationalism, \u201c’the better angels of our nature\u2019 are robust enough to create and sustain a better world.\u201d<\/p>\n

In considering \u201cwhether we should accept the debunker\u2019s contention that our moral beliefs\u00a0simply<\/em>\u00a0reflect \u2018morally blind\u2019 causal influences from evolution,\u201d FitzPatrick argues that, \u201cas in other areas of inquiry, we are capable of developing and deploying our evolved faculties, in cultural contexts of rich traditions of inquiry, in ways that are largely independent of specific evolutionary micromanagement.\u201d It is plausible that we can do the same, he argues, in reasoning about moral issues, to discover objective moral standards, at least with the right cultural and institutional support.<\/p>\n

But social media has enhanced the power of figures who spread false information for political gain, stoking fears that lead to tribalism\u2014\u201cthe opposite of moral progress.\u201d He concludes, \u201cOur prospects for moving closer to the ideals of a plausibly objective and universal morality depend on reversing the trends that have led us here and creating an environment where the better aspects of human nature can lead us forward.\u201d<\/p>\n

Fitzpatrick, a specialist in metaethics, normative ethical theory, and applied ethics, is an associate editor at the journal Ethics<\/em> and the author of Teleology and the Norms of Nature<\/em> (Garland, 2000), in addition to numerous scholarly articles and book chapters.<\/p>\n