Fiery Cushman (what a wonderful name) has a solid article in New Scientist about the scientific investigation of morality - such as why there is a moral taboo against incest. Much of what is contained here is not all that new, but it gathers some of the findings in a nice, clear package.
The article concludes:
As we come to a scientific understanding of morality, society is not going to descend into anarchy. Instead, we may be able to shape our moral thinking towards nobler ends. Which norms of fairness foster economic prosperity? What are the appropriate limits on assisting a patient's end-of-life decisions? By recognising morality as a property of the mind, we gain a magical power of control over its future.
I'm fairly much on-side with this, but of course it raises the question of how we judge what counts as a "noble" end. Our concepts of what is or is not "noble" must themselves have some kind of evolutionary or cultural genealogy. I'm not suggesting that that totally debunks them. We can certainly engage in rational reflection on what we consider to be noble in the sense that Cushman has in mind, and we may reach various answers. We may even converge on an answer if we reflect and discuss in good faith (but what if we don't?). Nonetheless, there's a problem that should be acknowledged. Once you think that our conception of what is morally good can be altered to track our concept of what are "nobler ends", there's then a further realisation that our conception of what count as noble, nobler, and noblest ends can also be altered.