first we must accept that altruistic behavior was selected for in our evolution due to a number of roaming issues. however, not everything that is selected for is good for us, for example rape. does this mean there is a natural for choosing morality elsewhere? if so, is it intuition? considering not all intuition is reasonable, would this describe people lacking morality?

an aside: many people talk of sociology and environment. put a person in a bad situation and don't expect the best course of actions, some say. though how much stock can be thrown into this considering many people are in seemingly "bad" situations -- consider those in third world conditions -- and are more loving toward one another than people in higher living conditions? is there something to say here for sake of comparison? for instance, knowing people somewhere else are living "better" and wanting that, frustrating your ability to love?

I think it is pretty obvious that money doesn't necessarily have a huge impact on happiness or one's ability to love.

If I had to guess why it appears that people in third world conditions are more loving toward each other I would say it is because of the values they emphasize. It is more important for a family structure to be close knit and stick together in tough conditions. In the U.S. there is a large importance placed on getting a good education (which likely involves moving away from the family) and finding a good job (same here).

we need to get you laid c_b. well, me first. then you.

I'm not sure where you want this discussion to go, but those lacking in moral resolve are deemed sociopathic. That would include rapists. These individuals tend to end up in jail if they choose to violate society's laws. Adherence to the code of law is a moral choice. Other individuals who choose to violate moral values that are not codified can be diagnosed with a variety of "personality disorders." So an individual lacking moral sense is not considered a fully assimilated member of society.

My understanding is that according psychological surveys, these individuals represent a very small percentage of the population.

we then have a choice to be altruistic or not? or is moral behavior a work of sharpening your ethics?

Yes, we do. According to the Enlightenment philosophers, the "noble" impulses are what set us apart from animals. If you distill down the altruistic impluse would it all come down to the ability to empathize? Why is it that people help other people? What adaptive mechanism made this come about?

If you saw someone unconscious inside their car with their wallet sitting next to them? What would you do? Call for help? Steal their wallet and drive away? Call for help, then steal their wallet and drive away?

If a wolf saw another wolf unconscious from defending its food from attackers, with its food still sitting beside it, what would the other wolf do? Wolf behaviour has been well-studied, the second wolf would take the food of the first wolf, run to a safe place and eat it. We don't expect anything else because we don't expect wolves to empathize even with their own kind.