Human ethics transcend nature, where might makes right. Ethics is meaningless if it is "just how it is."
That's not to say that nature and natures way can't inform ethics, or to commit to any particular ethical outlook.
That's not to say that nature and natures way can't inform ethics, or to commit to any particular ethical outlook.
I don't think that's true. Of course you can come up with ethical systems which transcend nature but the ones that actually get adopted are simply sets and heuristics which make the group benefit the most from "just how it is."
Considering that moral attitudes are partially heritable, on a long enough time-scale, ethics that are truly separate from nature are bound to disappear or be relegated to marginal groups of people.
Almost certainly. But they transfer much more permanently genetically.
"Group" is a slippery thing, though. There is always a tendency for individuals and sub-groups to cheat on whatever wider group ethics might exist.
It's a more complex phenomena than most people give it credit for.