How does morality come from evolution?

"When people ask where morality comes from, a common answer I hear is evolution."

If this is the entire premise of your question its going to go down hill quite quickly... oh look it is.

The answer here is that nobody claims that morality comes from evolution. While instinctual nature and the underpinnings of our ability to consider our actions came about through evolution, morality is an entirely social construct.

You really have no idea of what morality is do you. It is socially acceptable behavior which is much different than self sacrifice.

Morality was required for may to live a communal existence and has been around much longer than todays religions.

There is a lot of strong evidence that morality and more importantly, ethical behavior, is the result of evolution.

One of the things that Darwin got wrong was the idea of survival of the fittest applying to organisms as a whole. In reality, it is survival of the fittest gene that matters.

For example, if an organism had a gene for altruistic behavior such as sacrificing themselves for the good of the group, it would appear that a gene like that would be less likely to survive at first glance.

However, if we consider the kinship and close genetic relationships within groups of species, it starts to make more sense. Let's consider two groups of human ancestors. In one group a mutation has caused a gene for altruistic self sacrifice to spread through a small portion of the population, in another group no such gene exists.

The group with the altruism gene might have members that are more likely to die as a result of self sacrifice, however that willingness to put ones family ahead of ones self means that family members (who also carry that gene) are more likely to survive and pass it on. Compared to the group without the altruism gene, in which everyone only cares about their own safety, the group as a whole will be less safe, and therefore less likely to pass on their genes.

It boils down to the fact that altruistic behavior does not automatically result in ones own death and the inability to pass on ones genes.

This is actually observed directly in the animal kingdom outside of primates. There are many species that not only perform self sacrifice to save other members of their species, but animals that practice reciprocal altruism. For example, when a member of the species does something that benefits another member of the species, that gesture is often reciprocated, but when a member ignores the group, they are often ostracized.

These simple behaviors of animals are not that different from the human concept of ethics and kindness.

We "evolved" to have the moral standards we see in societies today, through trial and error over time. It's pretty simple.

near as i can tell its peer pressure

Morals are actually programmed into the human DNA by God. The Bible reveals this fact. It talks about people who have never heard of God or read his law of what is good and bad in the Bible, and yet still have the same moral compass as God's people:

(Romans 2:14, 15) . . .For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused.

Everything comes from evolution, every living thing on earth comes from evolution. So far no one has been able to show it to be any different than that.

Who exactly is giving you evolution as an answer. Please provide evidence this is a common answer.

Morality comes from the free will we are given from God.

No one ever said that. Rather, the evolution of SOCIETIES also led to the evolution of societal VALUES.

-If one argues, as some deeply religious individuals do, that without God there can be no ultimate right and wrong - namely that God determines for us what is right and wrong - one can then ask the question: What is God decreed that rape and murder were morally acceptable ? Would that make them so ?

While some might answer yes, I think most believers would say no, God would not make such a decree. But why not ? Presumably because God would have some *reason* for not making such a decree. Again, presumably this is because *reason* suggests that rape and murder are not morally acceptable. But if God would have to appeal to *reason*, then why not eliminate the middleman entirely ?- Lawrence Krauss, A Universe From Nothing, Pgs 171-172.