If brain capacities are not the result of our evolution, what is your alternative explanation?
— Questioner

The question is improperly framed as it presumes that morality can be explained by neurology.

WE learn more about the development of moral codes by studying the development of moral codes than by studying the human brain. .
— Ecurb — Wayfarer

The proposition put forward in the OP is that there is "no secular basis for morality."

This implies that all morality grows out of a religious tradition.

No. The morality came first. We evolved the neurological capacities for it. Our evolution as a social species refined it. Toss in the capacity to invent supernatural beings, and the evolution of a theory of mind, and we see the rise of things like religious rituals, myths, taboos, and burial practices.

As the practices spread, politics enters the fray, and voila, organized religion.

The proposition put forward in the OP is that there is "no secular basis for morality."

This implies that all morality grows out of a religious tradition.

No. The morality came first. We evolved the neurological capacities for it. Our evolution as a social species refined it — Questioner

Straight out of the Dawkins Dennett playbook. Evolution displaces religion becuase it's scientific. You clearly haven't understood anything I've said about it, so no use repeating myself.

You've moved to a teleological account. Teleology explains what counts as flourishing. It does not explain why flourishing is obligatory. — Banno

Yes, that seems fair. I guess the more observant among us would probably say: surely no one would willingly go against God if they had certain knowledge or faith?

In addition, one cannot act otherwise than in accord with the structure of reality. Both kicking the pup and feeding it are possible; Either is "in accordance with the structure of reality itself". "Acting in accordance with the structure of reality itself" tells us nothing about which to choose. — Banno

That made me laugh. I'll need to think about it.

...surely no one would willingly go against God if they had certain knowledge or faith? — Tom Storm

Ask Lucifer...

That made me laugh. I'll need to think about it. — Tom Storm

Worth considering in terms of "flourishing", to see how it doesn't help. We could feed the pup or eat it. Both incur flourishing. Which is obligatory?

You clearly haven't understood anything I've said — Wayfarer

I feel the same way.

Surely, you must realize that the idea of something being written in the heart, of wisdom being found there, crosses all cultures and transcends time. — Questioner

Something being "written..." is probably common in cultures that have had written language for some time.

However, that is not the case with Native American cultures at that time. So "written in the heart" does come across as an odd turn of phrase for a Native American, and more likely a European's paraphrase of something said by a Native American.

So "written in the heart" does come across as an odd turn of phrase for a Native American — wonderer1

Actually, this was my original quote -

"You white folk need a Big Book to tell you what is right, but what is right is engraved upon my heart."

Nevertheless, the sentiment remains

No. The morality came first. We evolved the neurological capacities for it. Our evolution as a social species refined it. Toss in the capacity to invent supernatural beings, and the evolution of a theory of mind, and we see the rise of things like religious rituals, myths, taboos, and burial practices — Questioner

That depends on what you mean by "morality". Obviously, all female mammals (and many non-mammals) care for their children and give them scarce resources they could use themselves. Does this constitute "morality"? Are all behaviors of which you approve forms of "morality"?

The4 dictionary defines morality as

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour:

. Based on the spelling of "behaviour", we cannot fully trust this dictionary, but "principles" are distinct from actions. A mother may nurse her children without considering the "principles" concerning this behavior. Indeed, "principles" are clearly based on language and are clearly cultural, not exclusively "neurological".

As far as which came first -- how can we know? AS far as we can tell from studying stone age groups alive in the recent past, most principles have supernatural (i.e. religious or mythological) facets. It is likely, of course, that such principles derive in part from natural (biological) urges, like the principle that mothers should care for their children. Buit the principles themselves are clearly cultural.

That depends on what you mean by "morality". Obviously, all female mammals (and many non-mammals) care for their children and give them scarce resources they could use themselves. Does this constitute "morality"? Are all behaviors of which you approve forms of "morality"? — Ecurb

Morality looks at questions of right and wrong. The ability to judge between right and wrong must come before any conclusion about what is right and wrong.

Based on the spelling of "behaviour", we cannot fully trust this dictionary — Ecurb

Lol, why not? That's how we spell it here, in Canada, and in the UK, too

Indeed, "principles" are clearly based on language and are clearly cultural — Ecurb

even chimps have principles about fairness and social rules

not exclusively "neurological". — Ecurb

I've never used the word "exclusively" - I've only referred to the original source of our morality - clearly, culture plays a role in shaping principles

As far as which came first -- how can we know? — Ecurb

trust the science?

Chimps have behaviors. We cannot tell if they have "principles". Eusocial (haplodiplontic) insects practice altruistic behaviors, too. Are these based on moral principles?

Chimps have behaviors. We cannot tell if they have "principles". Eusocial (haplodiplontic) insects practice altruistic behaviors, too. Are these based on moral principles? — Ecurb

the point is that humans and chimps are closely related, and notions of right and wrong first evolved in an ancestor we shared.

We are not closely related to insects, so whatever "similarities" we find between us and them is an example of convergent evolution and outside of this discussion