In terms of modern ethics, an individual is likely to receive their morals from more immediate sources such as peers, school, media,family, religion and so forth. I am not sure how far back you are referring modernization to, but individualism has existed among society for at least hundreds of years. We have very recently become more aware and accepting of individuality when it was considered alright to be different. Religious hangups over the years have sort of hindered people from emancipation of thought and were kept in the closet.

But originally, concepts of morality evolved slowly over time through the process of natural selection. Such a behavior could harm the survival of the entire species in which segregation of traditions, music, moral perceptions and so forth were divided among groups of people. The population of each group eventually became more powerful and influential and had more control over society. This sort of division has occurred with animals as well in which instinction of survival plays a role in everything they do. People are instinctively not likely to mate with murderers, rapists or terrorists for survival instincts, for prevention of these traits to pass on genetically.

Once these groups became more powerful, they began inflicting their ideas and moral perceptions onto more subjects. If not agreed with, the concept of "god" enters to keep people in line with the promise of eternal bliss or torture based on behavior. Thus all this leading to the way we think today. Our current mode of thought generally reflects on past human experiences.

Nicely put, but natural selection doesn't apply to concepts of morality. It applies to genetic mutations and generally occurs over considerably greater time periods than what we are considering here. What you are referring to, I believe, is called evolutionary psychology, although perhaps you are also reflecting some of the ideas in Neitzsce's 'Geneaology of Morals', especially in the last paragraph. This specific work has been very influential in the modern outlook on religion.

Right, it is evolutionary psychology or sociobiology which has been justified with multiple presentations of evidence. Such as genealogical behaviors among both humans and animals, selection of kin and reciprocity of altruism. Genealogical mutation is essentially a result of evolution and natural selection which because of this, cognitive development can occur. Hence why we have survived and our primitive ancestors have not.

well, they 'didn't survive' in the sense that they, like all of us, have a limited lifespan. However, many of their ideas and discoveries and characteristics are still with us and 'in' us.

I don't suppose, then, you have much time for the oriental idea of 'venerating the ancestors'? Or have they all been superannuated out of existence due to their superstitions?

Yes, we inherited much of the basics from them, but we gained so much more variations such as abstract thinking, innovation, planning and symbolic behavior. Their fate remains debated, but it was probably lack of interbreeding or confliction and competition with modern humans. Our own fate is not measured by lifespan, (unless we evolve into something else) but by how we are willing to endure by the use of the variations we have attained. But it is the domination of our primitive conduct that may put an end to our species much sooner than we have hoped.

well religion is a type of philosophy, and to many a manifestation of ethics. Nearly all major religions lay down a code of morals and ethics to follow to achieve eternal life. It can be used as a reason to behave well, or guidelines to do that. Tolerance of religion is almost the same principle of tolerance of different philosophical views, except much more to the extreme. The codes of morals found in religion do have a place in philosophy, but they certainly should not dominate in my opinion. Religion is to many the ultimate cause to keep one's morals intact.

If any morals are enforced by dogma then they are laws, not morals that can stand reasoning. Morals have to be reasoned and if they are faith driven, they have no authority to the secular society.

I agree with you there, let me just clarify: I think that the values that religion represents do have a place in ethical debate simply because of what they represent and their place in society, I don't believe that all philosophical debates should have to be centered around christianity, islam, or judaism. But only to the extent of using them as examples. Quoting a book of religion such as the Bible does not necessarily imply imposing what you personally think God's will, but how that person acted around another. But religion should certainly not be imposed upon anyone, people should be free to believe what they wish.

The question is, can morality be based on reason.

People can come follow completely well-reasoned arguments and come to completely opposite conclusions.

What one person sees as a civil right another may see as a moral infringement.

There is no way to artbitrate this dispute.