Can Darwinism account for morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

Hi,

I've been reading the depressingly interminable Brothers Karamazov  by Dostoevsky for some time now. One of the ideas that keeps returning is that "If god is dead, then everything is permissible". 

The simple fact that the godless are just as capable of demonstrating empathy and goodness as the devout turns that notion on its head, but the argument is often made that the yardstick with which modern societies quantify 'goodness' is inherited from the religious worldview. An accretion from the thousands of years of religious ascendancy.

This led me to wonder whether there was any scientific explanation for the development of the moral compass in humans. Could it have been that social cohesion was advantageous to our distant ancestors, and therefore a distinguishing factor in natural selection? Social cohesion is after all, only possible if the individuals who constitute a population are mindful of the well-being of those around them. 

I'm not hugely familiar with Darwin. My hope is that somebody who can claim otherwise might shed some light on this issue, that is, the emergence of morality - from an evolutionary perspective. 

Thank you.

Modern Synth, not "darwinism".  Darwinism...is what ignorant creatards call Modern Synth.  If you're asking whether not evolutionary theory can account for our "moral compass"......such as why we don't go around killing every other human being we meet......well, how many of us do you think would be here  if that was how we behaved? What state would we find the enterprise of humanity in, for those few which had escaped the axe while delivering it many times?  

We are what remains, so...yeah, it can, at a fundamental level, even with no -actual- "moral compass" involved..., just a trend in the behavior of the population -which remains- (which could change.......at any time, and -has- changed many times.. of course).