Evolutionary Explanation for Morality

Hi, I am new here. I am unclear as to exactly how evolution explains morality. My understanding is that if a group of organisms develops a moral trait, they will be more likely to survive than a group of organisms without the trait because of the positive effects it will have on the group. Is this more or less correct? I would appreciate either direct answers, or links pointing me to discussions that answer this question.

Thanks for the reply; that mostly makes sense. However, the second link raises a question it does not answer: how does evolution explain altruism that's not reciprocated? Also, it gives reasons for why men rape, but does not address why it is considered immoral to rape. Are there further explanations for these issues?

Chiroptera, could you explain what you meant? In the linked article I was referring to, there was a section entitled "Why Men Rape." It mentioned two hypotheses to why men developed the tendency to rape: However, it did not provide an explanation for why it is considered immoral to rape.But assuming uncompensated altruism and disdain for rape can be explained by evolutionary motivations, how would they (or any moral traits) be promulgated in practice? As far as I can understand, survival of the fittest only applies to individuals; particular traits would not be selected for unless they provided immediate survival advantages. It seems to me that the benefits of morality would be too long term, and morality traits would never prevail.

Ok, but don't animals (like ducks and dolphins) rape? So this is the part I'm really wondering about. I have a feeling I'm completely ignorant. But how do a bunch of individuals in a group develop an innate drive toward cooperation? And how would the ability to detect "slackers" and "cheaters" develop, especially simultaneously?Anyway, I am not talking about cooperation. Cooperation is completely different from unreciprocated altruism, although it could be classified as a form of reciprocated altruism ("you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"). There is also a large discrepancy between true unreciprocated altruism and the "niceness" defined by Modulous as "not betraying". Unreciprocated altruism refers to a selfless concern for the welfare of others, or acts of kindness with nothing expected in return - a very real phenomenon within the human race. It is impossible to explain away all cases of seemingly unreciprocated altruism as selfish.

Could you give Cedre's topic a chance? All they were saying is that, at least on the surface, "unbeneficial humanitarianism" is hard to explain, which is why scientists have researched it.