A constant argument I've been hearing recently is that people should be forgiven for engaging in unethical behavior if it is "natural" for them to do so. Examples:
- It's natural for people to be ethno-centric, nationalist, tribal, etc...
- It's natural for men to objectify women.
- It's natural for people and groups to put their own self-interest ahead of the greater good.
- It's natural for politicians and business leaders to resort to cronyism and influence peddling to further their careers and agendas.
- It's natural for people to take advantage of whatever loopholes and legal ambiguities to avoid paying their fair share of taxes or to avoid honoring contractual agreements, etc....
Assuming all of the above examples are indeed cases of immoral behavior, how can one still maintain moral objectivism in the face of the fact that these behaviors are somehow natural?
For example how can feminist principles be morally objective if it is men's nature to be misogynists?
How can one claim that racism is objectively bad if it is "human nature" to be tribal and to want associate "with one's own kind"?
If moral principle go against human nature, then doesn't that mean that they are arbitrary social constructs that can be easily dispensed with since there is no use trying to enforce them?
The only way I can think of defending the objectivity of moral principles is if they had some theistic or platonic otherworldly existence.
Bur from a secular or materialist point of view, how can one reconcile moral objectivism with the fact that humans are naturally immoral?