[Dogxzysl]

I read an article a while ago which suggested that morality is based on values and the idea that actions have consequences. (snip)If all we do is fulfill our own needs at the expense of others, we are societal outcasts - the consequences of those actions can be societally disastrous.

I was reading through this thread waiting for someone to say that. I agree. It's hard to see where biological evolution gives rise to morality -- that's social evolution. But it's easy to see how cooperation is necessary for a group to survive. And maybe cooperation begets* altruism.
(*Trying to sound biblical here).
I also think Penny_less nailed it by saying that morality is slippery because the rules change over time.

If there is only human opinion, then there cannot be an objective morality: there cannot be one set of moral laws which will work for all humans at all times.

It would be hard to "enforce." If all the babies on the planet were taught the same values and morals, they'd probably still develop their own customs and morals in their own 'hood, just like the case with language.

But even if it did work, it would be boring. I wouldn't bother to rent French films after that.

This brings up 2 points: why would God's opinion be objective, and not subjective? Ha, well, he's supposed to be the alpha male. No one's going to listen if it's not viewed as objective. I suppose it could be argued that if he created us then he knows what's best for us. That's why the crazies say things like god invented STDs to punish us -- b/c we didn't adhere to the One True Moral Codebook.

And (back to the God of the Gaps idea): why would an all-powerful God have created beings who depended on God for something so crucial to society, culture & therefore long-term survival? Because he's needy?