Bridging the Chasm
Reflections on Moral Courage in a Fractured Era
As I reflect on my recent conversations across the US and Europe, I struggle to make sense of the tensions that emerged. My notes point to an expanding gap between humanity and technology: while innovation, particularly regarding AI, surges ahead, human wellbeing and ethical wisdom seem to fall behind. The utopian promises of technology—the freedom and leisure it would bring—contrasts with creeping anxieties and isolation. Our values feel increasingly binary, as we become polarised by pragmatic political agendas. Over and over I detect integrity grappling with expediency, progress sparring with tradition, and optimism clashing with cynicism.
One moment that revealed this tension was a conversation with a group of scientists who are doing cutting edge research. However, they are more concerned by the emerging moral dilemmas, not just in their projects, but across the technology and AI world. Worse, however, is that the potential of AI appears to be making the most rapid advances in disinformation and political influence, rather than moral wisdom or human flourishing. How morality can accelerate ahead of misinformation is a pressing question.
Our values feel increasingly binary, as we become polarised by pragmatic political agendas
Some innovations are obviously good, while others are self-evidently bad. Windmills, waterwheels and wifi are clearly a good, while cigarettes, carcinogens and opioids are clearly a bad. In other words, very little foresight is required to grasp the problems for people or the planet that are inherent in an invention. However, some innovations—and this is probably more common—present ethical dilemmas we did not have before. The internet in essence is an enabling utility. However, it has also eroded privacy. It has enabled social control of citizenry. It has allowed dangerous ideas to find and consolidate their tribe. Hence, technology offers capabilities we did not possess, which in turn raises ethical questions we did not contemplate. Yet the ethical frameworks meant to guide us fail to keep pace, outpaced by these emerging and unexpected ethical questions.
I have been concerned about the widening technology ethics divide for decades, joining philosophers dating back centuries who made ethical critiques of breakthrough innovations. However, this current moment feels distinct. When I first highlighted this gap, society still generally rested on shared moral foundations, while our discussions centred on which relevant principles might apply to moral dilemmas. Today, we lack even that common grounding. In a world that esteems personal autonomy, inner feelings eclipse any external ethical systems or social obligations, leaving conversations grounded in personal emotions rather than communal values or collective reasoning. It is a recipe for conflict. Simple questions about right and wrong elicit profound confusion, and often vehement disagreement, as I discovered in a recent dialogue about values based leadership. Reflection requires a foundation—and ours is cracked. And the pool of Narcissus offers a poor solution
When someone has an internalised moral framework, we can engage in meaningful dialogue and respectful conversation, even when our values differ. However, inadequate education has left many lacking an ethical orientation, a problem which is exacerbated in an increasingly nihilistic and relativistic world. There are no shortage of headlines that reveal this collapse in the moral compass.
Reflection requires a foundation—and ours is cracked.
And the pool of Narcissus offers a poor solution
Meaningful moral dialogue requires a shared understanding of what constitutes morality and moral behaviour. Without this, conversations quickly become frustrating. The issue is not simply differing moral perspectives, such as a traditional Biblical view versus a progressive stance. While values may vary, these views still operate within coherent moral frameworks.
The deeper problem arises when someone has no ethical framework at all. They act based on momentary feelings rather than reasoned principles. They are comfortable with contradictions because they are not tethered to consistent values, other than their own self-belief. When called out, they dismiss criticisms by pointing to the requirements of the situation. The one following their moral compass can see wrongdoing, while the moral relativist is blinded to it by expedience. Lacking a common grounding in ethical reasoning, the two talk past—and so walk past—each other. One appeals to objective values while the other cites subjective impulses. If we are to find a way forward together, we need to establish a shared starting point in morality and ethics.
But why does our ethical discourse lack common ground? Because we can no longer agree on what constitutes reality. With no shared sense of reality, we have no shared sense of morality. When facts become subjective, moral truths become elusive. The claim, for example, that it is possible to become a different gender, only allows for agreement or disagreement, and is underpinned by fundamentally different understandings of reality. Those holding these competing views find reconciliation impossible. Hence, we are not facing division based on the political paradigm of, say, the left and the right, or between liberals and conservatives. With no objective anchors, worldviews drift apart and shared values cannot take root. When perception alone dictates reality, truth loses meaning. It is difficult to find your moral lighthouse in the turbulence of relativism. The key to calming that storm is nurturing a common understanding of reality.
Unfortunately, as our understanding of reality and morality fragments, so too does our sense of community fracture. Many observe how society is becoming increasingly tribal. However, and tragically, those tribes are growing hostile. We do not simply seek out kindred spirits: we cancel, deny the rights of others to exist, and in some cases eliminate. We dehumanise those who differ from us, erasing our shared humanity. When reality splinters, community shatters. Together we may find a way forward.
Perhaps the path lies in our shared hopes and dreams. Regardless of our differences, we are united in our aspirations for home, for security, for love and care and wellbeing. Even in the midst of division—and perhaps particularly there—people continue to nurture dreams of a better future. Mothers envision their child thriving. Workers yearn for dignity in their work. And idealists imagine a just world. By tapping this moral imagination, we can paint a unifying vision of a noble future. Despite the cacophony of chaos, those with courage can call out the dreams. Bold dreamers can reveal the bridge, and bold creators can build it. A shared vision of that future could help us find the common ground we so desperately need.
Bold dreamers can reveal the bridge, and bold creators can build it.
Ultimately, a unifying ethic emerges from my reflection: a shared care for humanity that transcends division. While differences exist, I repeatedly find a common desire that values understanding over judgment, curiosity over combat. Over coffee and conversation we discover the impact of seeking first to know the heart behind the beliefs, and the power of shared dreams rather than shared dogmas. If we nurture this ethic of care, perhaps reconciliation is possible. Our collective moment calls for moral imagination, moral courage, and tenacious optimism—since the challenges before us, however vast they may seem, are diminished by the exponential unity of each of us at our best.