The biological origin of our social behavior includes or should include philosophy, but philosopher's seem afraid of it

We can't reject rationalism any more than we can reject empiricism or experience in finding the truth, we need all the help we can get. And both religion and science are useful in the quest for truth.

The biological origin of our social behavior includes or should include philosophy, but philosopher's seem afraid of it. Even the courageous Nietzsche ended up affirming individualism and even narcissism because he did not seem to see the biological origin of altruism or being-for-others which he hated.

The individual was and is best advanced in group-selection, which is the origin of altruism. As sociobiologist E.O. Wilson wrote, “Hereditary altruists form groups so cooperative and well-organized as to out-compete non-altruists groups.” Then individual selection usually moves toward excellence within the bonded group. I suppose World War Two scared many postmodern philosophers away from the genetic base of social behavior, but it need not have.

Rationality, empiricism, religion, and science, can bring us to the theological materialism written about here, as well as a few other odds and ends, including intuition and art.

The kin-centered and ethnocentric universal nature of basic human nature grounded in the biological origin of our social behavior suggests an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, where distinctively different ethnic groups can survive and flourish being who they are, in their own skin. Who would object to that, unless you want total imperial dominance of one group over all the others, which in our crowded world usually ends up bonding all groups together for a time to destroy the arrogant marauding group.  It gets more complicated when the imperial-minded group takes over the social institutions from within, but the same biological origin of their social behavior applies.