Another Ethical thought

My ethics class has been talking alot lately about what human nature is and why its so important. Frankly, I think most of what's been said is a load of crap. Not one of the philosophers we've covered have even mentioned natural selection, evolution or mutability. Not one seems to have ever taken a biology class within the last 150 years. Granted, philosophers before then wouldn't have even heard of Darwin (except perhaps for he accomplishments of Erasmus Darwin), but there's no excuse for more recent ones. Even before the theory of natural selection was formalized, the vast majority of the biologically minded community acknowledged that humans are in fact animals and that no species is immutable. Apparently nobody told the ethical theorists. Even today in class, my prof said that human nature was human nature and that it was universal across the species.
OK, here's a new ethical theory for you, it has two assumptions: 1. human beings came to their current state through the process of evolution by natural selection. 2. If there is such a thing as justice, then it is subjective (ie. one group argues that each person is autonomous with equal rights and another argues that people are variably dependant and have the equal right to have their dependancy accomodated). "Moral action is that which is in accordance with those which produced that which is viewed as human nature or changes what human nature is for a significant proportion of the population." This theory is univeralizable (throughout all life), consequentialist, and can serve as an umbrella theory under which all the other theories which my ethics class has covered.
It is universalizable across all life becaue it has all reached a current state through a process of evolution. If an organism is capable of behavior, then we shall arbitrarily say that its behavior can be deemed either beneficial/ moral, detrimental/ imoral or neutral. For much of the animal kingdom, we shall say that the range of potential behaviors is genetically hard wired (to apply to humans you can either change all occurances of the word gene to idea, belief or code of action, and any word synonymous with inherited to learned, or you can leave it as is, depending on you views of human developement). An organism is therefore obligated to conduct itself in those behaviors which increase the fitness of its gene line and those behaviors which are utilized to that end. A behavior that inhibits the reproduction of that organism will not be passed on to the next generation and thus the proportion of individuals with that trait will remain very close to 0 (its distance from zero depending on the liklihood of mutation wich results in the production of those inhibitory behaviors). Likewise, behaviors which improve evolutionary fitness will increase in proportion within the population. The developement of a novel behavior which does not affect the likelihood that the gene which controls it will get passed on will be subject to genetic drift. There would be an accumulation of novel characters which are not necssarilty shared by the entire population nor all in one sect, if the rate of mutation to produce these behaviors is greater than their random elimination through serendipitious death, non reproduction or reverse mutation. The other factor that would affect the accumulation of those characters which do not affect reproductive success is linkage. The likage/ closeness of two genes is an expression of the probablility that in a random sample of progeny from a single set of parents, individuals that inherit one character will also inherit another without necessarilty a causal relationship. If a completely neutral gene is likely do be inherited with a detrimental one, then it will likely be eradicated from the population. The converse is also true (linkage to a beneficial gene increases the carrying proportion of the population).
It is important to noe here that the affect a behavior has on fitness is entirely situationally dependant. On its own, anything becomes nuetral because it serves no direct purpose (digestion is meaningless without absorbtion, copulation is meaningless without gestation). An act can be beneficial in one situation but nuetral or detrimental in another dependig on a change in the environment (including social environment). The value of any behavior can switch to any other value depending on the situation. In the human world, flying would be considered by most to be morally nuetral. It becomes evil if you purposely crash it into a couple of builings and admirable if you fly air drop supplies for the hungry.
Humans are particularly interesting creatures because of the complexity and placticity of our behaviors, of which, one behavior is reasoning. Reasoning ability opens range of behavior even wider because we have the ability to construct tools to manifest our ideas, desires and feelings. We as human beings are not physiologically capable of completely independant powered flight, yet it is clearly within the range of our abilities to achieve flight through our natural tool use and reasoning. The act of reasoning itself one could argue is evolutionarily nuetral, but it is the impementation of that reasoning through our mechanations which affect our success (dolphins could be capable of reasoning but we'd never know it because they don't visibly do anything with it). In this way we are contrained by the limitations of our mechanations and the sum of the mechanations of previous generations. Therefore we cannot actually act outside the limits of our natures since we have it within our natures to achieve anything given time and resourses. Thus it is completely meaningless to say that acting in dischord with our nature is immoral since it is an impossible condition.
Ok, so no that I've explained alot of the biological background, I can actually get into the syntax of the theory itself. Since it is not possible to act outside the limitations of ones nature, it is possible to not act in accordance with those behaviors which increase or maintain genetic fitness or contradict those that developed the current condition of the species.
You know what, I'm actually getting bored of writing this, as I'm sure you're bored of reading this. Ok, it boils down to there is no objective good or evil act, its all situational; a group can feel threatened by a suddenly successful group and intentionally suppress it as a way of maintaining their success or they can join the new group; people when you get down to it, really aren't that bright.