That's absolutely right, SRS. There are animal instinctive behaviours whose function is to protect and perpetuate individuals and the species. Those behaviour patterns have great evolutionary value in spite of their basic, "unthinking" nature. Species with social organisation structures are great examples, as is flocking behaviour in birds and fish. One may be seen to be "moral," worker bees sacrificing themselves to protect the colony. Or the other "immoral," birds or fish gathering in their thousands, each individual essentially acting to lessen its own chances of being picked off by a predator. Looking after numero uno. But even that behaviour is "moral" in the sense that a large assembly looks far too menacing for a predator to want to attack at all, so the community is protected even by behaviour that hardly has that in mind. Isn't evolution wonderful. The nurturing of young is seen as a beautiful and "moral" activity, but it's also "immoral" in that the primary interest is basically to protect the bloodline. It's less "immoral" and more "moral" when it occurs within communities, especially when crèches are involved (it does happen). When we start to consider humans, we have to drop the "unthinking" bit because, well, we can think and reflect and try to balance. But we retain all those old, primitive behaviours and we hone them into the thing we call our moral code. Over time that is modified and becomes highly developed, to the point where we adopt behaviours that don't possess much evolutionary value but are more tied up with tradition, ritual even. Only apropos of that last point does religion start to creep in. Very much the Johnny-come-lately in the formation of human morality, and he isn't always welcome, especially when he encourages such negativities as heresy, religious wars and martyrdom. The very best of humanity comes when we learn to stand on our own two feet and eschew crutches based on myth and fallacious thinking. We can still leave room for imagination...