Evolution cannot account for morality

[Paleophyte]

It's easy to accept that the way humans evolved resulted in us having morality.

What I don't see yet is why evolution would necessarily result in us having any particular morality. I mean, it would be nice to think that natural selection favors societies in which everyone lives happily together and shares resources. But is there any scientific evidence that this is true? Maybe strong DNA is more effectively passed down if one or two tough guys enslave harems and rape them to produce lots of babies.

A few guys with harems wouldn't do it. More likely you're looking at a lot of soldiers doing the whole rape and pillage thing for several millennia. And a lot less organized general rapiness for a few million years before that.

Is there any empirical, repeatable, quantifiable evidence that evolution gives rise to the kind of morality that we happen to like?

You're looking at competing drives here. Biologically we optimize for one solution, socially we optimize for another. And of course there are numerous stable solutions for many problems. Is it any wonder that we're a crazed little species? One might predict that this state of affairs would give rise to a whole slew of different cultures with core commonalities and near infinite variety around the edges, which is exactly what we see.

In the special case of rape we're almost certainly evolved to find it even more traumatic than it clearly is. The selection pressure is for the strongest women who resist the most to breed only with the strongest, rapiest men, so nature hardwires in some extra emotional pain and suffering to help ensure that's how it goes down. This is what we observe in ducks and they know nothing of morality. No room in their tiny, smooth birdy brains for that. Nature's a real Mother some times.