> "Telling right from wrong, or deciding how to feel about other people's behaviour, is a job for our consciences."

Well the moral and good men in WW2 would never even thought of killing.

But then they were ordered to, and because everyone said "it's ok to kill" this taboo of killing was suspended for the few years of the war.

So our morals are obviously complete relative to what most people around us are doing.

Kill a random guy in 2010? Murder. Kill a random guy in a way in 1945? A pat on the back and the medal.

From a biological survival standpoint "beeing good" matters only "within the tribe" because that is how you stay alive and thrive.

But if the tribe would trive better as a whole if you murder the opposing tribe then that is also "being good".

If morality is rooted in brain science it merely means that it's not absolute, but relative since brain changes if evolution happens.

Today's goods are tomorrow's evils.

And then there are doctors and academics who say we should dump chemicals in water to artificaly increase "altruism".