This. Decision-making autonomy > moral obligation.

Decision-making autonomy is compatible with weak notions of moral obligation, whereby it has been decided that doing X is immoral in one specific circumstance (due to non-utilitarian outcomes), but individuals should still have the choice to do X in that circumstance.

Decision-making autonomy is incompatible with strong notions of moral obligation, whereby it has been decided that doing X is immoral in one specific circumstance (due to non-utilitarian outcomes), and individuals should not have the choice to do X in that circumstance.

many people believe god gave us free will and doesnt control every day to day action, but can intervene when it is appropriate.

Do you think that sex before marriage used to be immoral (actually immoral, not simply considered immoral by more people than do today) and became moral (actually moral, not simply considered moral...)?

I would obviously say that there is nothing immoral about sex before marriage, all that changes is people's understanding. My earlier example, slavery was always immoral, its just that more people have come to understand why. Same for, say, misogyny - not treating females as equals is immoral, and again, more people have come to understand why. As opposed to these ideas changing from being actually moral to actually immoral (or vice versa).

I'm more interested in the medical teams choices rather than the gunshot victims, actually. Earlier you described someone that failed to perform an immoral act that would have an overall great benefit as cowardly. Are the medical team cowardly if they save that persons life instead of allowing him to die and harvesting the organs to save multiple other patients? For simplicity, this gunshot victim requires only a standard level of care to save him, nothing extraordinary, but without this care he would not survive.

Without the ability to empathise, an organism cannot be aware that it is causing harm to another. Hence, empathy is a requirement for moral behaviour. Species without empathy cannot exhibit moral behaviour. I don't think this is controversial, is it?

Very much simplified, morality is about recognising that (and how) someones behaviour positively or negatively affects another. I like "morality = empathy + reasoning".

At one point in time, in much of western society, it was immoral. I am not sure what you mean by "considered immoral".

You're making a distinction between what is 'considered immoral' and what is 'immoral' as if slavery had always been immoral, but it just took us some time to realise this...

My counter to this is the argument that before industrial machinery empowered us to better meet the accelerating demands for physical labor, slavery may have been necessary to the development and survival of many of the great ancient civilizations.

In this case above, it was technology's influence that prompted a real change in our thinking on slavery. In fact, some philosophers in ancient Greece may have been repulsed at the moral implications of slavery, just as some people may be repulsed at the moral implications of eating meat in the current context. This doesn't mean that eating meat is immoral right now. Especially if meat is currently necessary to ensure that our growing populations can be fed.

On a related note. I can just as easily make a similar distinction between those who are 'considered powerful' and those who are 'actually powerful', but for all intents and purposes this distinction would be unnecessary. If some CEO for example is 'considered powerful' because he is paid/valued twenty times higher than any of his peers, then he is powerful.
The medical team have to follow procedures that have been set in place. Are they cowardly for following the procedures? Only if they disagree with them.

P.S. I think that cowardice is rampant in modern society. It has almost become the normal way of functioning, as value for 'courage' has lost significant ground in the post-industrial era. Much of this is to do with the new power structures and rising power inequalities.
It's not controversial.

So you wouldn't label for example a lion who eats his own baby as behaving immorally?

Would you?

If eating babies is morally wrong in the case of humans, I'm just trying to understand why this is not so in the case of lions. I've heard 'empathy' so far, yet the necessity for empathy implies some sort of hard-coding (genetic) requirements for morality.

To provide another example. Bees have high amounts of oxytocin chemicals, mirror neurons and most other characteristics associated with empathy. In fact, they're commonly referred to as the most altruistic species on earth. So, if a bee were to kill other bee babies, would it be behaving immorally?

Or do we also need 'reasoning' for morality to have meaning? If so, how much of one's reasoning capability is already hard-coded (genetic)?

Can this be extended to conclude that most of morality and moral behaviour therefore, is hard-coded?

Or perhaps, both of these morality requirements are commonly imposed without acknowledging their implications? perhaps in an attempt to explain something that's not there to begin with? or something that could be replaced with a more descriptive phrase like: 'survival strategies?'

I'm trying to understand why philosophers in particular, cling to this notion of morality as something that cannot be learned about through observation of other species behaviour (evolutionary biology).

The ability to comprehend moral concepts is required for being a moral agent.

Empathy may motivate moral actions but they no more define them than egotistical motivations do. So I would argue that the ability to reason is central, the form that moral facts take or whether they exist at all is another question.

Some birds can comprehend moral concepts in that they appear to be aware of the existence of other birds and how their actions impact on other birds.

They share food for example, and they care for their young.

It seems to me that maybe, it is not only the ability to comprehend moral concepts, but language as well, that may be a defining component.

Beyond self-interest, what use is the ability to comprehend moral concepts, if those concepts cannot be communicated/shared with others?