Evolution and natural selection does not care about morality.
Why should humans?
“because humans are better than apes” …? Weak argument.
Without some moral system, we would live like every other animal, and don’t mistake that for a judgement.
This has been presented in fiction countless times, and those fiction is not made up from thin air.
And if it wasn't illegal, some immoral entity would outcompete you by killing all of their rivals (including you).
The whole point of the law is to standardize morals so immoral actors don't gain advantage.
People who commit murder wantonly are generally untrusted and/or shunned. Being banished is really dangerous, so people tend not to go on more killing sprees even without formal laws
Yes, people are naturally social and naturally enforce social norms. But this natural ability doesn't scale beyond a tribe (see also: Dunbar's numbers). Our natural social patterns only work when everyone in the group knows everyone else and they all interact frequenlty.
Laws didn't invent morality or punishing antisocial behavior. Laws are what allows them to scale and support societies of millions, where most of your daily interactions are with strangers you'll probably never again see in your life.
‘Everyone should be good because it’s the right thing to do, and making them not be murderous assholes is exhausting’.
Which hey, that would be nice, but it’s clearly not the case - as demonstrated by the non-zero murder rate all the time.
Jumping from "money making via tax breaks" to "murder" is quite a jump, also. These are along a spectrum of choices.
On the one hand, you're referring to "companies" in a way that rejects them as concrete entities that possess moral agency: excluding them from "everyone", calling them "amoral" etc.
On the other hand, you're referring to them in a way that attributes purposeful, intentional action to them, in a way that requires them to be concrete entities possessing moral agency: you're describing them as entities that do things in pursuit of desired goals, respond to incentives, etc.
These are contradictory concepts, yet you seem to be using the first as the rationale to formulate opinions about the second! How do you reconcile this?
In the case of a "company", I wouldn't even necessarily call it a thing per se, as much as I'd regard it as a kind of reificiation, a shorthand used to refer to a pattern of human activity as by a single name for the sake of convenience. It may be that the actual people involved, for whom the "company" is merely an organizational model they're using to coordinate their activities, often have motivations and intentions that they allow to supercede their moral consciences, but that's still on them.
Attributing either blame for malice or credit for productive results to the organizational model itself, as though it itself possessed agency, seems to be a very fundamental error.
Because we don’t, our representatives work for companies like Meta, not ordinary people.
I think a better question is, how effective is that compared to legal requirements.
The general assumption should be that at least some people/corporations will do ANYTHING that is legal as long as it is profitable.
Don't worry, my anger is limitless and I can direct it at both corporations and corporations at the same time.