The lack of morality among all mammalian species indicates it is not instinctive or innate.
Unless you are claiming morality has been universally practices in all human culture.
You argue like a creationist or other know nothing dolt. Make a blanket, unsupported statement, claiming something that is obviously absurd on the face of it, then think it must be disproven rather than you making your case for it.
Look up reciprocal altruism for some ideas along the lines of morality in humans from a biological perspective. It’s still a far cry from instinctive.
Homo sapiens function in a way that makes us form tribes, communities, cultures, societies, and civilizations. The ones that act morally survive, and the ones that don't die out, even if it takes hundreds of thousands of years for those fates to be dealt. On the civilizational level, a long term example would be the Roman Empire and a short term example would be the Empire of Japan.
So yes, there is an instinctive and possibly evolutionary reason for why morality is innate.
I never said it was exclusively innate, and that a world with maximum suffering being undesirable is a supposition.
It doesn't even look like you have an argument to make. I've never seen someone get so excited over the dictionary definition of an item of discussion. I'm providing real world reasons for arguing in a moral way.
Not sure what you're about. Maybe you're a misanthrope?
Was driving to the store thinking about your comment and remembered this from way back.
I'm not arguing that gorillas are going to establish a Constitutional Republic anytime soon, but I think it at least makes one pause about the innate nature of minimizing suffering.