Summary of a Number of Reflections

Key Sentence:
Our behavior is the result of genetic drives and neurological rewards, with both self-directed behavior and empathy serving evolutionary functions.

Introduction:

Everything we do is determined by our brains. It depends on the structure of our brains, which can vary for each person; that is why everyone behaves slightly differently. The structure of our brains is determined by our genes, which in turn are shaped by our (fore)parents.
We experience happiness through a substance called dopamine, produced in the brain in the hypothalamus. It is therefore a kind of reward.
Everyone strives to feel happy. So we do the things that lead to a reward. This leads to behavior shaped by the body’s mechanisms. But this can differ for each person: we may feel better by acting solely for ourselves, or, for example, by doing good for others, which makes our group members appreciate us, triggering dopamine production, thus encouraging behavior that benefits the group.
DNA is in cells and contains all the programming of our body. DNA is large and stays inside the cell, but RNA is the messenger that can travel from the DNA of one cell to a new cell to pass on information so the new cell can function properly.
Our DNA contains the trait to ensure that we continue to survive both as individuals and as a group. We can therefore say that we have both self-directed drives and altruistic drives — the feeling of empathy.
We should not place moral judgments on these drives. These feelings are necessary conditions for our existence. If there were beings who lacked them in some way, they apparently went extinct. This is a key conclusion of evolutionary theory. Not because we must survive, but because only those beings with these traits still exist — others would have perished. It is also necessary to have a wide range of variations so that the group can adapt through evolution to changing circumstances or environments.
As Swaab states in "We Are Our Brain" (2010): “life has no purpose.”
In Susan Neiman’s book (2002), in the chapter Hope, and elsewhere, there is frequent discussion about whether humans possess goodness or are self-directed, whether morality exists. The very fact that they worry so much suggests they hope morality exists.

The fact that people generally value morality indicates that humans consider it important, which already says a lot. Initially, we might not need to talk in terms of good or bad. Humans, as individuals and as groups, have through evolution a sense of self-preservation. Therefore, both self-directed behavior and altruism exist, not as good or bad, but as necessary traits to increase the chance of survival as a species. Without both, the group and its individuals would have gone extinct.
Morality does not come from faith or other externally imposed rules but is in the genes and has evolved over time. When we do things that produce a feeling of reward, we are more likely to repeat them, cultivating this feeling through experience. We also learn from our environment and the experiences we gain from it. Ultimately, we strive unconsciously for that feeling of reward, because it signals that what we are doing is beneficial. That reward is caused by dopamine produced in the hypothalamus. It is more complex than I describe here; for accurate information, it is better to read Swaab, but in essence, it is a chemical reaction.
The phenomena of altruism and morality, the adherence to rules, also occur in animal species such as primates and apes, who have not read law books, the Bible, or the Quran. These traits are also found in dolphins, elephants, and others. It is encoded in their DNA. It is necessary for the survival of the species. We place too much emphasis on altruism being good and self-directed behavior being bad. If a lion eats a lamb, is it bad? And if it doesn’t and its cubs starve, is it good? These are necessary traits that must be accepted neutrally. I see no reason to dismiss this as “are we just chemical factories controlled by chemicals and lacking something higher?” So what — we are who we are, enjoying life, sex, happiness, and ideals, even if it is a chemical process, and given the number of people on this earth, that has never been an obstacle, with no mandate from religion or law, whether life has a purpose or not.
In his book Ethica, Aristotle (384–322 BC) describes human behavior based on his insights and without the influence of religion. His insights seem universally human. He lived from 384 BC to 322 BC and was therefore not influenced by Christianity. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) seems to have integrated much of Aristotle’s work into Christian thought, except, of course, God, Jesus, etc.
Humanity is part of the Universe, the Cosmos. To understand the total system, one must adopt a universal or holistic perspective. The consequence is that humans must be humble in their views on ethics and morals, on what is right and wrong. The rules about right or wrong are human constructs; they are choices about how humanity can reasonably coexist; they do not extend beyond the human domain. From that universal perspective, human ethical norms may conflict with the survival of the Earth, natural resources, animals, etc. From a universal viewpoint, there are no ethical rules, as they evolve as they evolve; there is no universal purpose; except perhaps for the rule stated by the second law of thermodynamics, which says the total entropy never decreases — meaning that nature strives for a state of equilibrium; but there is little ethics in this.