Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy

Indeed, I have pointed out before that if you talk to christians who claimed to derive their morals from the bible, and if you get specific enough, you will very quickly find that there are pieces of their human conscience missing. If you look back through the various threads, you will see that some christians on here actually have no problem with killing 2 year old boys and pregnant women, and a few have even word for word admitted if god commands it or if the 2 year olds can potentially harm Israel in the future than it is right to kill them and their pregnant mothers.However, I don't think there is a Darwinian based moral outline. Evolution strictly deals with biological matters. There are cross overs, however, like how the theory can explain the most basic "moral" social constructs as beneficiary to the survival of the community. For example, we observe in penguins that sometimes when a baby penguin dies the mother becomes distressed and tries to steal another female's baby penguin, and when this happens all the other penguin mothers intervene and prevent her from stealing another's child. Someone once told me that evil is the lack of empathy. Perhaps this explains why christians are experts at oppressing minority groups. Again, while I haven't been able to pin point the reason why this is so christians seem to lack the human intuition to tell what is right and what is wrong. I don't know if being christian has made them this way or if they'd already been this way in the first place and christianity seemed to fill in the holes in their conscience. In short, you don't want to harm another person because you can imagine yourself being the other person. But whatif you know for sure that you could never be the other person? What if you are king and you know your fate could never be that of the man you just condemned to death? Would it still be wrong to murder if you know for sure you could never be murdered?

There isn't any explanation from the evo stand point on morals.What we are saying is that sometimes a survival trait could appear like moral, like the penguin example I provided. That's not what I'm saying.Say you are king and you know that noone could ever harm you. You decide to start murdering peasants, which nobody really cares for much. Is it still wrong? What I'm trying to get at is where is this sense of murder being wrong coming from? You've just said that even if it doesn't affect you it's still wrong. Why?Let's look at an episode of the twightlight zone I saw ages ago. You are given an opportunity to be rich. All you have to do is push a button that immediately kills a person. This person, as far as you are concern, is a total stranger. The death of this person has no affect on you whatsoever.I'm sure we can all agree that the act of pushing this button and killing the person is wrong. The question is why is it wrong? It has no bearing on you whatsoever. It will make you rich. Noone will care if that person is dead. Why is it wrong?Added by edit.Well, I guess I should provide a quote as well."Is a thing good because the gods say so, or do the gods say so because the thing is good?" - Socrates before his trial for corrupting the minds of youths.Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.