i am not sure what you said about apes is entirely true. we may not recognize their system of morality, as it surely differs from ours, and, well, they haven't written anything down. that doesn't mean it's not there.

g

Carl Rogers said that the core conditions of .empathy , congruence and unconditional positive regard / warmth for 'other ' ,were all that were necessary for personal growth.

Empathy seems like the root of it, but there I believe there are more than one type of morality depending on different situations.

I think ethic is based on rules/laws. Some of the oldest existing writings are laws such as the Code of Hammarby
Empathy and reciprocity are non-cognative and amount to rah/boo ethics, which have no rational ground
A conception of what is or is not just seems to be common to societies. While it is argued that our conception of justic is normative and varies from socity to society, I believe there are certain laws that transcend normative values: such as the law against unwarranted killing.

Chimps don't have courts of law, only death penlties...

The deeply felt morality that you speak of might have social value within a particular group, but in some circumstances that kind of morality might be a handicap. If there is war a person might have to put aside his moral sentiments. Maybe it’s a valuable thing to be able to see morality as purely subjective and relative rather than as ones sacred identity. The alternative might lead to insanity, or to defeat.

A soldier can still empathize with the enemy, but he needs the ability to perform his duty without emotional baggage.

Much of morality is based upon the idea of liberty which is that you own you in a property rights way. Most mrorals and laws stem from an abridgement of that property right.

Neuropsychologists believe there are two types of empathy: emotional and cognitive. Emotional empathy generates group identity, and is mediated in part by the hormone oxytocin. This hormone is released in the mother when the newborn suckles, enabling the formation of a strong emotional bond. Emotional empathy is the ying-yang of empathy in that it is the basis of in-group/out-group identity. Donald Trump is great at promoting emotional empathy, and generating antipathy between groups. Cognitive empathy transcends group identity, allowing one to logically assess his fellow human's position. This type of empathy doesn't develop in the human until young adulthood.

I don't think those who study the difference between humans and chimpanzees would agree with your assessment on the difference between humans and apes. Michael Tomasello's research has shown that chimps and human children have similar IQs. Where we differ is in our social skills. Humans seem to have a greater capacity to form empathetic bonds than do chimps. A great book to read is Tomasello's "The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition." He summarizes years of research on the differences between humans and chimpanzees. Many now believe that the primary role of the frontal lobes is not to enhance cognitive abilities, but rather to enable us to navigate our social world. Lesions in many areas of the frontal lobes result in the individual being unable to navigate social norms.

Is empathy a response to morality as a baseline social preference or an internal driver? Certainly moral/ethical rules have different grounds depending on their culture, therefore ethical rules are not universal. Responses to the ethical rules of another culture are informed by one's own cultural, ethical norm and so can be responded to with curiosity at best and horror further along the scale, depending upon the deviation from personal practice if coming from an ethnocentric standpoint.

If empathy is cross-cultural then it transcends societal norms. If it is inter-social it is an aspect of social construction. An argument could be that empathy can be trans-cultural due to the observable empathy many individuals have for different species regardless of the culture within which they are innate.

I think it began as a transaction which was not just an agreement to support each other in need, but also as an investment in the future in the sense of insurance against need. If so, that's a hell of a concept for a cave-dweller to ideate. It's astonishing to think how that idea, which I think is akin to barter, reached its apotheosis over time in the Christian notion of a man-god investing in his own death to buy himself a better position in heaven and support and save all mankind in the process.

Empathy can be very important, but science shows that people who are or have psychopathic tendencies can have a strong moral code. Yes, serial killers are usually psychopaths, but psychopaths are not all serial killers. So, something other than empathy can guide a human to being moral. Would that be reasoning? Maybe.