*In theory* all our morals should be based on evolution -
Why?
there is no way round this as the theory currently claims it is responsible for all that we are: only morals useful from an evolutionary point of veiw would exist withtin us, according to the theory itself. Every feeling we have, every emotion we go through should potentially be explained using the theory. For example the fact that we care about each others survival is down to 'group survival' according to some models - and this gives us an evolutionary benefit in helping propagate our genes.
I don't agree with that. It's not only about survival. Love, empathy, friendship, altruism, social ties are not beneficial to the evolutionary process yet they are a fundamental part of our morality.
The question I am asking is can evolution really account for all the in depth morality and emotions that humans posess and are capable of.
The evolution of our morality should not be attributed only biological reasons but to sociological ones as well.
If you are suggesting that some parts of our morality did not result from evolution - then where else did they come from?
My opinion is that in the early period of humanity (scattered hunter-gatherers communities), our morality was based on the survival of the fittest. Everybody was concerned about himself, his partner, and his immediate band. But with the introduction of agriculture, the structure of inter-human relationships evolved because under the new economic order society operated best in groups not individuals. Members of the group only cooperate with those who also cooperate and exclude those who do not. Bands became tribes then states then empires....etc. And with the progress, the empathy and altruism extended from one's partner to his band then to his tribe and country and now (hopefully) to all humanity.