Dividing moral questions into those of substantive ethics, what should I do, and those of metaethics, why should I do what I should do, the mechanistic/Darwinian approach has little novel to say at the level of substantive ethics. One possible exception is that it is doubted we have equal moral obligations to all humans indifferently. We have special obligations to our children and other family members, and more to our friends and our countrymen than to others. We have obligations to the starving poor in Africa, but charity begins at home. Metaethically, the Darwinian can offer no justification. That would be to violate the naturalistic fallacy, going from claims about matters to claims about values. For the Darwinian the world has not intrinsic value. This means that the Darwinian is a moral non-realist. It does not mean they have no substantive ethics, but that these are psychological not grounded in external supports, natural or non-natural (like Platonic forms or the will of God). We objectify morality, thinking substantive claims do have support, are objective, otherwise we would all begin to cheat and the whole system breaks down. Ultimately, however, face to face, Darwinism demands a dramatic rethinking of common sense and the assumption of the ages, at least in western civilization.