Could ethics be the mental icing on an evolutionary cake ?

Nietzsche, a philologist, posits that a distinction is to be made between the polar opposites "good" and "bad," and another set which is comprised of "good" and "evil." I wouldn't attempt a précis of what he wrote in Beyond Good and Evil--it's been about 30 years since i read that. However, his argument is compelling. He has a bad reputation, wholly undeserved, because his sister cozied up to the Nazis long after his death, and his thinking was warped to suit their purposes. Those wishing to investigate the subject further, however, might benefit from reading this work.

Thanks Setanta. Checking Nietsche out.

If you mean that they attack each other, that is exactly like the killing of the runt kitten. Just eliminating the weakest genes to further the species.
If you mean that they attack other animals, they are simply getting food and that is more survival.
Something can only be evil if the person committing the act is aware of his wrongdoings.

As for ethics being the icing on the evolutionary cake, there is no proof whether or not any other animals have a code of ethics. That makes us the only observable example and ruins any research into that fact.

It is simple. If ethic is a fruit of evolution, then its further development could be a part of human evolution.

Will there ever be any substantial evolutionary development past ethics?

Since culture is an evolutionary force to be reconed with as well, why has altruism caught on as well, though? Surely "evil" and "good" can't both be evolutionary traits, since the one would eliminate the existence of the other. Apes and so forth have shown "altruism" as well as "viciousness". What if those ideas are both rather irrelevant in terms of evolution, and merely consequences of culture?

They are relevant though because they help to further the species.

Pleased to see this thread rekindled.

A couple of points.

1. The "ganging up" of whales etc does not appear to be for food but for "play". Killer whales will gang up on the calf of other species of whales and take the odd bite whilst tossing it in the air.

2. The "evolutionary model" is by its very nature a "dominance" model. A theistic or spiritual view of "ethics" would generally be the antithesis of this, except where "good behaviour" constituted the conscious entry requirement for further "evolution of the individual" to a "higher existence".

Males, in almost all members of the feline family (?), regularly attempt to kill offspring sired by other males.

In lion prides, this is so evident, almost the only cubs that have any chance of staying alive are those of the most senior, dominant lions.

It is not an evil act.

Emotions are a weakness. At what point was having a conscience to be good implemented into humans. It might be a good evolutionary trait now, in the past few thousand years, but if it really is survival of the strongest, then both male and female would believe that compassion, love, sincerity, attachment, etc. would all be weak traits.

If evolution is true, then I think that ethics are a by-product of our minds becoming developed enough to rationalize situations and override our instincts. Then societies in general deemed them as necessary for stability.

If we didn't have any compassion for learning, then we would all be soft-bodied, balding apes. I would hardly call emotions a weakness because they fueled our intellectual drive and forced us to become more social.