It goes back to my original question, of how you define "moral". If morality is what is best for society, how do you define your society?

I am sure that the Vikings and Ghingis Khan were doing what they thought was best for their own societies. I am sure those that were pillaged would disagree. I am also pretty confident that religion did not motivate the pillage, though I am sure that the whatever priests they had jumped on the gravy train to get their share. Just as the Church of Rome did when Conquistadors came to the new world. They didn't steal the gold because of the church. They stole the gold because they wanted the gold. Had they been atheistic, argument like, We will make better use of the gold so we deserve it." would have been put forth.

Animals do not follow the golden rule. Animals do not have to choose between small social units and larger ones. Animals do not think about higher ideals.

To say that morality is just about passing on genes is to ignore all human accomplishment besides breeding.

>>Moral code? Just a way our genes control us in order to reproduce most effectively.<<

If this were the case would not the most moral behavior be to knock up as many girls as we can when we are young then to have a harem when we are older.?

I think the answers to why those things are not moral points to the difference between human morality and animal behavior.