or is it that individual rights and benefits must be balanced with the good of the collective?

what defines that balance?

well, that would be what I suggest as the basis for morality: principles that promote survival and reproduction within the group, that promote power and stability for competition with other groups

and against nature

a balance completely toward individualism would dissolve the group and turn individuals against each other in destructive way

as for a balance skewed completely toward collectivism, it's a bit harder to show why that is not a good idea

I need to introduce a few more things

but the point is... morality is affected by evolutionary forces that act on the survival and reproduction of the group, not necessarily just the individuals

the same morality that we use to make our moral judgements, ostensibly in defense of individual rights, is grounded in a balanced individualist/collectivist morality

and you can call that "individualism" but really this is a misnomer

at least for the principles that allow for moral intervention of children/incapacitated etc.

Yes I want the person/s in power to share my morals. What is good for everyone is their individual rights. Why limit ur thinking of a princepels with in a gentic group. You say reproducion but that does not pass down belifs, insted think about converting people too ur ideaology as that, not reproduction spreads ideals. Which can contain ideals to protect those also in ur group.

reproduction does in fact spread ideals, allow me to explain

first of all, many traits like personality and IQ are partially heritable

Islam spreads through breeding.

The yearly number of converts and apostates are pretty much the same.

secondly, those who get to breed are those at the top of social hierarchies

Yes IQ and Personality are partally heritable, but its not 100%.

third, the people at the top of social hierarchies are those that most embody the ideals of the group

those that embody those ideals have traits that allow for it

they get to breed

and pass on those traits

oh and those traits affect what one's principles are

I did not inhert my parents ideals, and those far from my gentic pool share my ideals.

so, the principles are then passed on

the ideals are then protected by them for the sake of retaining the position of themselves and their progeny in the social hierarchy

of course, these actually need to be effective principles or else the group perishes against nature

or other groups

But its better to pass it on orally insted of genticly. As gentics only passes ideals to a fraction (also only one chance, while you can talk to someone many times).

yes, without that it only passes them on insofar as personality and IQ traits are passed down. These traits would need to give rise to values all over again if nothing were passed down orally

however, as it is effective, passing down the principles, the tradition, becomes part of an effective culture

this causes the following feedback loop:

environment -> traits give rise to principles/culture -> cultural development affects environment -> repeat

If people holding one ideology outbreed other people, it can create bubbles, societal pressure to maintain the ideology.

yes. however it is also an effective aspect of a culture to allow for adaptation

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that ideologies are passed on through your genes?

not entirely

As far as I know, personalities can which then affect which idelogies your likly to pick

yes

I don't think genetics is involved. Bring 10 minions to this world, force them to be drones to your ideology, done it's spreading.

You do realise that you are not going to be able to selectively breed personalities right?