Some thoughts from Razib, over at Gene Expression.

Well, my eyes glazed over after this statement (which he agrees with, more or less, further down):

a good person knows in his gut the difference between right and wrong

Only an intellectual could believe such a silly statement. In our guts we know when we are hungry or sated, and that's it. Folks who think morality proceeds "naturally" from our instincts are like those earnest naifs who think societies just naturally and spontaneously create wealth, so there's no need to worry about cherishing its ability to do so (e.g. no reason not to expropriate the rich to feed the poor).

I tend to think these are people so unaware of the hard work others did to give them their wealth or freedom and ease (or sound morality) that they just take it for granted. Gee, this came to me without cost, so I guess it must be free. People with PhDs ought to be warier of such facile reasoning, but surprisingly often they aren't.

Heather leaps into the fray. She concludes that "reason and a commitment to evidence provide ample grounds for leading a moral, responsible life."

Reason and evidence can tell you what observable activities and situations are helpful to someone, and which are hurtful. It can't tell you that you should give a flying fandango about that someone. That takes a leap of faith.

"It can't tell you that you should give a flying fandango about that someone. That takes a leap of faith."

No, it doesn't. The capacity for empathy is intrinsic to normal people, and its application comes from learning to see things through other people's eyes. Faith is neither required nor particularly helpful in promoting morality, and is notorious for corrupting it.

The capacity for empathy is intrinsic to normal people

The capacity for playing tricky bits of Mozart on the harpsichord while blindfolded is also intrinsic to normal people.

But it takes faith (I use the term synonymously with "belief" and not merely "religious belief") to claim that we must regard popular empathies as a sign of moral obligation.

It takes both faith and reason. We observe that virtualy all humans believe in right and wrong. Do right and wrong really exist, or is this a mass delusion among our species?

Pure faith says different things to different people, since faith alone is subjective. Pure reason sees only the physical universe, and thus rejects objective morality, since that concept has no conceivable physical source. Philosophy (faith plus reason) says take the shortest leap of faith. Most believe that Occam's Razor prefers the "objective morality" hypothesis to the "mass delusion" hypothesis.

"But it takes faith (I use the term synonymously with "belief" and not merely "religious belief") to claim that we must regard popular empathies as a sign of moral obligation."

Applying empathy doesn't require faith at all, but only the ability to connect other people's feelings with our own--i.e. "moral reasoning." Faith is reason corrupted or abandoned altogether, so you can't base morality on it--otherwise you end up misapplying empathy where it doesn't belong (e.g., embryos), and failing to apply it where it does (e.g., Iraqi civilians).

We definitely have a failure to communicate. Since people are capable of supporting the rights of those form whom they have no empathy, one must conclude that moral reasoning is faith + reason, not emotion + reason.

Besides, it takes a leap of faith to believe that one's own emotions are in sync with what is ethical.

One more thing. Part of the human norm is limited or even nonexistent empathy for outside groups. Beginning from this position, a moral code based on empathy and logic will conclude that people from outside groups matter less than the favored group, or not at all. That has been the dominant moral code throughout history. The argument that all people must experience a certain level of empathy is an argument that stems from faith.