Performing greedy deeds is immoral.

Con seems to attribute to me the opinion that behaviour slected for is "good". It is not objectively good or bad and could be judged to be either or neither depending your point of view. We already agree there ultimately is no good or evil. Similarly, these behaviours and emotions exist as a consequence because of the effect they have had on fitness, not because of their goodness. Feelings of jealousy may not be "good" from a moral point of view, but they may still have a positive effect on fitness.Con writes: Claim: Racism is an instinct. Warrant: "do you have any strong indication otherwise? Racism is a natural extension of favouring your own tribe over others, which is indeed a survival instinct" [6]. There's a minor contradiction here. Racism, by definition, has to do with race. One tribe is not necessarily of a different race than another. The members of a tribe are not necessarily of the same race. Still, from an evolutionary point of view, we morally consider people differently. The innate, tribal "us" and "them" kind of thinking is important and explains a lot about human moral thinking towards others. Humans collectively raise their fitness together through cooperation. In a tribe, your own wellbeing is partly dependent on the wellbeing of others. "Us" are the people whom your fitness is partially dependent upon, whom you can work together with. On the other hand, "they" are people who are a threat to your wellbeing. They are likely to be competitors for resources or even a direct, physical threat. Whenever a human considers another human being, they unknowingly judge whether the person they are considering is an "us" or a "them". If the person is considered an "us", we extend to them greater moral concerns than we would if they were a "them". This difference can be dramatic and could for example mean the diference between wanting to save this person or leave them to die. In a war scenario, we accept that soldiers kill "them", yet we generally abolish murder in our own societies. As a trite example, this line of thinking explains how a normally peaceful, moral human being could regard immigrants as little more than animals and happily leave them to die. Clearly, such a person subconsciously thinks of immigrants as part of "them" and not "us".Appearance like skin colour is an indicator of whether a person should be consided an "us" or "them", but it is by no means the only one. People can be easily separated into "thems" based on politics, religion, culture or geographical borders. Awareness about this human tendency to divide people into different groups worthy of different moral consideration can help all of us to avoid such knee-jerk reactions. In the ideal, peaceful world, every human would consider all other humans to be part of their own tribe and worthy of the same, basic moral protection.To equate the above to "racism is selected for, hence it is morally good" is a fallacy. It is not racism which is selected for, but rather the ability to judge whether or not a person you meet is someone you can cooperate with. Hence, it is cooperation which is selected for ("good"), not racism. Like racism is not cooperation, so greed is not cooperation.As for Donald Trump on morals, I'd simply claim that he is not an authority on morals. The earlier cited Richard Dawkins, although not a moral philosopher per se, would be a much better authority on what morale is or isn't.That we are not truly equipped for modern society and technology, and that this includes our morals, is true. As an example, imagine there's an infomercial about starving children in Africa on TV. A person in the US might feel compassion for the child on the telly and would so choose to donate money. From a natural selection point of view, this may not seem to make sense. The person on TV can't cooperate or reciprocate, so why give something when you can't receive anything in return? The answer is, of course, that during our evolutionary history, TVs did not exist. Your emotions might react as if they were seeing a person belonging to your own society who could reciprocate. This does not mean that not having compassion is a good thing. Morals are not rational, but ultimately belong to the real of emotions and it is our feelings that judge the moral value of an act, not rationale. Hence, this point is interesting but has little real relevance to the debate. Closing statement; various creatures evolved dfferent strategies in the struggle for survival, like cheetahs have evolved for speed or a polar bear has adapted to cold environments. Humans have adapted for other things and crucial to our enormous success is is intelligence and cooperation. Humans are extremely social and our cooperation is facilitated and promoted by an in-built capacity for morals. An act of greed is asocial, uncooperative, and the fundamental reason we instinctively think of an act of greed as something morally bad is because this understanding is built into our very nature. Hence, it is as objectively true to us as morale could be.