[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it's just really good luck that makes it so eating broccoli or hugging your mom is rarely considered "immoral"?
"Morals" require underlying logic. They are either good for tangible reasons, or they die out.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is ridiculous. Through evolution, it's the law of the jungle. If I'm stronger than you I can take you down and own all the women in the area. How does that resemble morals?
Moreover, viruses and
memes don't have to do good to anyone to survive. They survive because they can. Religion is a perfect example. So is the common cold.
The ever advancing moral zeitgeist doesn't evolve because it's good for us and reproduces by selection, we make it evolve the use of reasoning and communication.
We choose what is best for us, for our interests/purposes, within a lifetime. Because we are intelligent enough to do so. We design our moral/ethical code. It doesn't evolve on it's own by a process of natural selection. And to the extent that it does, it doesn't "do it" for the "global good", or even the good of the majority.
But the thing here is that not all human beings share the same interests/purposes, especially in the sense that we can be selfish and want something for ourselves when that means someone else won't have it.
This is the main reason why there are different moral/ethical codes within the human population.