[quote]Based on the faulty assumption that morality serves to perpetuate the species.[/quote] Not such a faulty assumption. The specifics of morals are debatable, but the mechanisms that drive them are evolutionary, and exist because they do benefit the species. All primate societies have their own moral codes. They are different from group to group, but some universal rules. For example, no primates routinely practice incest. This is a moral rule, since there is no physical barrier preventing it from happening. There is no potential downside to this rule, unless a species is knocked down to a single family. I'd present honor killings as an example of a possible universal moral rule. In the remote areas of Pakistan and India, parents keep a vat of acid around in case one of their daughters looks at a boy. If they do, they murder them by pouring the acid on them in what is called an "honor killing". These are not defective girls, nor are they naturally selected for death. I would suggest that forbidding this practice should be universal to the human moral code. It will never improve the fitness of the species, and can only detract from it by killing otherwise completely healthy members. There is no foreseeable situation where killing your daughter with acid would ever improve our odds of survival. So, I do think that there very well could be some universal human rules, and that a strong evolutionary case can be made for them. In fact some already exist, and are even older than our own species.

[quote]I'd present honor killings as an example of a possible universal moral rule.[/quote]That strikes me as pretty damn culture-specific. The cultural dogma of most well-off countries would find honor killings repugnant. I'd say the general rule is to remove harmful people from society.

I'm saying ever human should be disgusted by it. Barring that practice would be a good universal moral rule. Honor killing certainly isn't an evolutionary benefit, nor could it ever be in any imaginable scenario. It's one of the few things that immediately comes to mind when people argue in favor of moral relativism. It is an example of one thing that should be obviously wrong no matter where in the world you are.

[quote]Based on the faulty assumption that morality serves to perpetuate the species.[/quote]It doesn't. Morality exists to satisfy any arbitrary goal. Humans have a common goal of preservation. [quote]While Evolution (your "molding") does select for actions that benefit the species, the things that benefit the species aren't static. Consider bisexuality; there are a number of anthropological explanations given for why it may be beneficial to a society (extra-help, alliances, etc.). However, when the AIDS epidemic occurred, it is clear that "moral acceptance" of bisexuality got a lot more people killed.[/quote]There is still nothing intrinsically wrong with being bisexual in your example, only with having unprotected sex with people whose health you aren't sure of. [quote]There can never be a general morality because there can never be a general set of beneficial traits (general in the sense that they can always be beneficial).[/quote]I can't think of a situation where "wanting life to continue" is inherently detrimental to life continuation. [quote]Only if we become prophetic, or powerful enough to be unaffected by changes in our environment, could we begin to seek perfect morality or perfect genetics.[/quote]I'm really not harshly dictating any moral value other than "help others and yourself as best as possible to survive and be happy." [quote]making the notion of the existence a "general" set clearly false.[/quote]There is no factory human, but we do have aspects that unite us as human.

[quote][quote]There can never be a general morality because there can never be a general set of beneficial traits (general in the sense that they can always be beneficial).[/quote] I can't think of a situation where "wanting life to continue" is inherently detrimental to life continuation.[/quote] Sure you can. Resources become limited, and spreading them evenly won't be enough to keep anyone alive. The thing that you're not getting (with all the arguments) is that "what we want" doesn't matter, only the results of the actions, no matter our intentions.

[quote]Resources become limited, and spreading them evenly won't be enough to keep anyone alive.[/quote]The word "inherently" was very important, there. The desire to keep life/consciousness/happiness going in your example is still the measure-stick you hold consequences up to. Anyway: The rational life-affirmer would let some go hungry, in that case. Just like an enforcer of social order can harm/kill a man if he is an immediate threat to another person, letting people starve in your example would be a sad but necessary action for the greater good.

[quote]The [u]rational[/u] life-affirmer would let some go hungry, in that case.[/quote] That only works if the person knows ahead of time that that would be the best option. Perhaps it would be more efficient to keep everyone alive for a little longer than it would to fight them at the start. He can't know, and thus rationality (morality) is worthless. His intentions mean nothing if he doesn't have the power to guarantee they are realized. This is what you're not grasping.

The future will never be absolutely predictable, but we still have the ability to predict probable outcomes from our experiences. We can't be [u]perfect[/u] modelers of reality, but we can still model reality.

Then your "General Moral Theory" is just an arbitrary degree different from any other method, and no more valid in an absolute sense.