^^”How does the non-evolutionary answer resolve this question?”^^
1. I apologize if I’ve been unclear, but the position I am taking does not necessarily entail a denial of evolution by any means. I was just saying the evolutionary by itself cannot give us a proper basis for right and wrong. So, I am not saying “the non-evolutionary answer resolves the question” but rather that the question is not resolvable with the evolutionary answer alone.
2. “Harming an individual or group” sounds like a good basis, but then there is the problem of the dictator who likes harming people as I posted a few times ago.
3. The example you bring up is interesting. It almost sounds like you are saying killing innocents is objectively bad and nourishing innocents is objectively good?