No, quite the opposite; the concept of "Morality" is to all evidence a uniquely human construct, it appears only humans have the capacity to recognize and act on moral precepts. As mentioned, that is a signal differentiation between humans and the rest of the planet's biomass.
Thanks, that clears things up.
No, I am saying that which does not " ... simultaneously most effectively and efficiently contribute to that which is "necessary to the survival of any species renders any such choice immoral."
I can see that statement might benefit from a bit of disambiguation. Perhaps augmenting the word "survival" with the phrase "and overall benefit" and replacing the phrase "any species" with the phrase "the entire community of species" might serve more clearly to convey my intended meaning. Does " ... simultaneously most effectively and efficiently contribute to that which is necessary to the survival and overall benefit of the entire community of species renders any such choice immoral" work better for you?
Well, I'm not exactly sure who you include in the "community of species," but let's focus for the moment on the human species, since you and I both agree that humans are the only moral animals.
If actions are moral insofar as they simultaneously most effectively and efficiently contribute to that which is necessary to the survival and overal benefit of the species, then we should expect that those acts which positively affect the survival of the next generation to be more moral than those acts which do not. Let's suppose, then, that a 20-year-old woman sees an 80-year-old woman drowning in a lake. The younger woman swims out to save the older woman, even though she risks drowning herself. We might praise the younger woman's act as moral, yet, from an evolutionary perspective, it is hard to defend. After all, once a woman is past menopause, her contribution to the continuation of the species is largely over. In biological terms, she is simply living on borrowed time from that point forward. Certainly, if we are concerned about the perpetuation of the species, then we shouldn't be encouraging young women of child-bearing years to risk their lives saving old women who can no longer reproduce. Indeed, far from being a praiseworthy, I'd think that, under your version of morality, the young woman's act should be condemned as immoral. Is that right?