My own take is that empathy is the chief moral motivator. Sometime in our evolutionary past we developed the power to empathize, which leads us to caring for the individual to our right or left and caring for our society at large. I see morality essentially as the avoidance of harm. Much more than a ‘fight or flight’ mentality, empathy allows us to envision the consequences of our actions towards those around us versus the more self-centered view that thinks chiefly one’s own well being. This would be a more complete view of evolved morality since it does not require vengeance or legislated punishment to aim one’s actions in a harm-free direction.

But then again, maybe I’m just a softie.

You have only to step outside monotheistic thought patterns to understand how much western atheists and theists alike operate on the narrowest bandwidth of “knowledge”.

If your model of religion is based on the big-3 near eastern monster-theisms, you won’t even understand truly Western (Roman or Greek) philosophical theories and practices so vigorously suppressed by byzantine jack boots of a near eastern church militant.

1. There is no inherent relationship between religion and morals.
2. Xian “ethics” is not ethical at all.

Xian ethics is irrational, otherworldly, and impractical. It promises much, and delivers nothing. Jesus’ “interim ethic” couldn’t outlast one generation of true believers. After all, the world was about to end. (Sermon on the Mount — search term: interim ethic)

The fideistic irrationality of Paul of Tarsus with its anti-intellectualism, misogyny, and revenge seeking has poisoned the West for 2,000 years. After all, the world was about to end — but it didn’t. (Read 1Cor1:20-26 NIV)

Chinese culture was far luckier. From that very rational, this worldly, and practical book, The Analects [Conversations], attributed to Confucius.

Five hundred years before mythological Jesus and hysteric Paul, Confucius was eons ahead of contemporary xian (jewish/islamist) thinking:

6:20 Fan Ch’ih asked what constituted wisdom. The Master said, “To give one’s self earnestly to the duties due to men, and, while respecting spiritual beings, to keep aloof from them, may be called wisdom.”

Get the point? No relationship between religion, “spiritual beings” and ethics, “the duties due to men.”

15:23 Tsze-kung asked, saying, “Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one’s life?” The Master said, “Is not ‘reciprocity’ such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” [trans. S.R. McIntyre 2003]

What follows? No religion police!

No prelate, priest, pastor, rabbi, imam is needed to dictate human behavior. All ethics is irreducibly social (but not utilitarian). Harming others cannot be generalized; otherwise, no culture could exist.

There’s no need to invoke modern evolutionary theory (or memes) — unless they’re Lamarkian — each generation of persons teaches the next.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/480619/where_morality_comes_from_one_atheists.html?cat=47