@whiteliondreams , I am a bit confused as to what you are asking, so please excuse me if I am off base here.
There is a controversy in biology as to the mechanism for the evolution of altruistic behavior, which would include much of what we think of as moral. Previously there was a general agreement that altruism evolved through kin selection. An organism might help a relative at cost to its own survival chances, because it would help to insure the survival of their shared genes. This was used to explain, for example, why all the closely related sterile worker bees in a honey bee colony work so hard to maintain the colony. The problem with this theory, IMHO, is that it does not cover altruistic behavior among those who are not closely related.
The more recent theory is that altruistic selection occurs at the group level, without regard to kin. Imagine two groups. In one group there is no altruism. Each organism is out for itself. Within the group, these organisms will dominate. Now imagine a second group that has an altruism gene. If the group remained isolated, the gene would die out. But now imagine a confrontation between the two groups. The one with the altruism gene will prevail due to the heroic efforts of some of those with the gene, thus assuring the survival of both the group and the altruism gene.. There is a mathematical theory for this, which I have not had a chance to look at, originally proposed by the mathematician George Price. Note that group selection explains honey bee altruism just as well as kin selection. Since the bees are so closely related, once an altruism gene sneaks in, it will be prevalent throughout the colony.
E.O. Wilson, a highly respected biologist who previously advocated kin selection, has created a stir by coming down on the side of group selection in his latest book. Here is a brief discussion.