I think evolution does take morality into account in a certain way. If you're a utilitarian, in one formulation, you'd say that the good is people being able t

I think evolution does take morality into account in a certain way. If you're a utilitarian, in one formulation, you'd say that the good is people being able to satisfy their desires. People form groups, build things together, etc., in general, to satisfy their desires collectively. We are able to satisfy more desires by working together. My point is that barring genetic engineering or drugs or something else causing us to change our motivational system fundamentally, there will always be some people that are a bit greedier than others. Even if we are collectively materially rich, there are always more things to be acquired, and even if we had unlimited material wealth, there would always be scarce goods like the time/attention/respect of others. Would you, for example, advocate that one should spend their time with others that they don't like, or even people who behave abusively, as long as these people get a lot of pleasure out of the interaction? On your second point though, people generally do act morally, and that moral behavior is an evolved trait of a group, because moral behavior promotes the interests of the group. Compared to, say, 50,000 years ago on the savannah, the amount of concern that people show for one another's well being is far higher.