Buzz words and phrases that form a biased picture:
"People with consciences (unlike certain religious people who only care about divine command theory, and would otherwise eat their own babies) were better breeding partners".
A few points, one of which is that what some do in the name of religion does not necessarily follow the teaching of the biblical God. Are you suggesting that what a small minority do (eating babies) represents the vast majority and are you implying that through divine command theory that God commands such actions?
Please state whether you are citing the biblical God as God, Ragnar since your reference seems to be a biblical one (do you have a verse of Scripture you are implying this from?).
I. Long Term Self Interest (AKA Consequentialism)People being civilized benefits everyone, there are too many things groups can do which individuals cannot. We codify this and teach it to our children. Boiling this down to the simplest terms, people seeking easier reliable access to food, does not require any divine intervention.
True, it does not require divine intervention if what makes people seeking reliable food a moral imperative of what is right? If I seek easily accessible food by stealing your food is it right? It depends on which side of the equation you look at this from unless there is an objective, unchanging measure and reference point that knows and reveals the difference. Otherwise, it is a matter of wills and may the fittest, the strongest, the most cunning, and shrewdest win.
Easier reliable access to food by who? What about all those who are starving? What happens if they can't afford to buy food? Do they have the same accessibility that those do who can afford to buy food?
"This category also includes altruists, who get a sense of joy from helping others, and care not for bribes or threats from religious terrorists."
Again, what makes what someone likes to do something good or right? I believe you are confusing what is with what ought to be. I believe you are confusing a moral right with a subjective preference or taste. There is a different, and I ask how you derive an ought from an is? If you could then if Joe liked potatoes (what he wants to eat) then should all people like potatoes and is eating potatoes "right"?
With moral relativism (i.e., no absolute, universal, objective, unchanging frame for morality anything can be passed off as "good") what makes your opinion of long-term self-interests the one that others should follow? Is it because you agree with it that you base all others deciding on it as right all about?
I could give you a historical example after example where long-term "self-interests" counters the best interests of a vast number of people or classes of people. Apartheid in South Africa is one example. Slavery in the South of the USA is another. Killing Jews in Nazi Germany is another. Abortion is another.
History is replete with examples.