According to Huxley [via]

The propounders of what are called the ” ethics of evolution,” when the ‘ evolution of ethics’ would usually better express the object of their speculations, adduce a number of more or less interesting facts and more or less sound arguments, in favour of the origin of the moral sentiments, in the same way as other natural phenomena, by a process of evolution. I have little doubt, for my own part, that they are on the right track; but as the immoral sentiments have no less been evolved, th’ere is, so far, as much natural sanction for the one as the other. The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before. Some day, I doubt not, we shall arrive at an understanding of the evolution of the aesthetic faculty; but all the understanding in the world will neither increase nor diminish the force of the intuition that this is beautiful and that is ugly. . .

The history of civilization details the steps by which men have succeeded in building up an artificial world within the cosmos. Fragile reed as he may be, man, as Pascal says, is a thinking reed: there lies within him a fund of energy, operating intelligently and so far akin to that which pervades the universe, that it is competent to influence and modify the cosmic process. In virtue of his intelligence, the dwarf bends the Titan to his will. In every family, in every polity that has been established, the cosmic process in man has been restrained and otherwise modified by law and custom; in surrounding nature, it has been similarly influenced by the art of the shepherd, the agriculturist, the artisan. As civilization has advanced, so has the extent of this interference increased; until the organized and highly developed sciences and arts of the present day have endowed man with a command over the course of non-human nature greater than that once attributed to the magicians.

This puts some teeth into the naturalistic fallacy: the bad evolved as well as the good, is just as natural, the choice is ours.

Update: Bad Choice

. . . cosmological narratives serve as a basis for three kinds of activities that are at the core of all religious traditions, including religious naturalism.

The first activity is interpretation of the narratives. . .

The second activity is spiritual practice . . . including "awe, wonder, humility, and gratitude that about which we sing and pray." Religious naturalists exhibit such reverence towards the earth, existence, and to what Goodenough refers to as "the epic of evolution," a scientific worldview of the origins and evolution of the universe, earth, and life.

The third activity, ethics, is the basis for Goodenough's presentation at this year's AAAS meeting. In religious naturalism, a scientific understanding of humanity's impact on the Earth combined with a religious viewpoint of nature gives rise to "ecomorality," a planetary ethic that prioritizes stewardship of the environment. . .

Although Goodenough and her colleagues were viewed as "a bunch of hippies" ten to fifteen years ago for their take on the potential for synergy between religion and science, this attitude is changing.

A more intelligent, more rational view of cosmological reality recognizes the absolute evil as well as the stunning good, and accepts it. OK, I get it, continue. Gratitude is a muddle minded reaction, except regarding your totally bad ass ancestors who managed to survive and whelp you. If you reflect that you are standing on their backs it becomes easier to get your humility and gratitude properly aimed. They, at least, can understand your emotions and might even care. It's worth paying attention and trying to do well, since it is more than possible that you will not even accomplish that basic task of providing a back for you descendants to stand on. You might win a Darwin award.

Update: And another thing

[Y]ou can have the best scientific theory possible about the evolutionary basis of whatever sentiments and dispositions you think is central to morality, but it’s not going to leave you with anything like a useful or coherent theory of the right or the good. One thing I think some ev psych fans have a hard time getting their heads around is that morality–the system of norms that regulates individual behavior and enables social coordination–is variable by “design,” and that our evolved moral capacities are largely norm-acquisition devices which must wait to be calibrated by enculturation. We’re “fill-in-the-blanks slates” not blank slates. There are what you might consider “factory default” settings. (Which involves a lot of out-group slaughter, I’m afraid.) So, yes, certain configurations of moral sentiments, certain systems of norms, are more “natural” than others. But they lead to relatively terrible societies–nasty, brutish, short, etc. The norms that undergird the peaceful liberal order of impersonal, extended, massively positive-sum exchange are the result of generations of often self-conscious resistance to the “factory defaults.” Which is just to say, T.H. Huxley knew what he was talking about.

IMV resistance to natural tendencies, rather than wallowing in them - good or bad - is required. Resistance doesn't always means rejection or avoidance, it means thinking about such tendencies and considering their long term implications before deciding whether to embrace a tendency or reject it. Some are useful, some are not, timing matters.