Nice quote! I see you have been doing some searching into the matters we are discussing. And so have I.
First of all, I see no reason to assume that "all these analogies [comparisons to animals] are superficial and have no general significance", as is stated in the quote you provided. The books I have been reading on evolutionary psychology seem to think the analogies ARE indeed of great importance. Too bad the author doesn't provide more information to back up his claim.
I have also been doing some more thinking about instincts and morality (or ethics, whatever term you prefer, they are virtually synonymous).
I will give you an example from the movies this time (and not from nature ):
Have you seen Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction?
If you have, you might remember the scene in which John Travolta's character has to take his boss' wife Mia (Uma Thurman) out for dinner, so she isn't lonely when he is out of town. After the 'date' he is faced with a difficult question: He wants to have sex with her, and knows he might just get it, but he is also concerned, because he heard the story about a man who massaged Mia's feet and got thrown out of a several-storey building for doing that... Having sex will get him killed if anyone ever found out...
Do you see the conflict of instincts here? 1: the urge to reproduce (or just have sex, since sex WITH a condom has virtually the same effect on most men as having sex without one in terms of complying with the instinctive urge) , and 2: the instinct to stay alive.
The difference between humans and animals is that we have the ability to see beyond the first instinct that pops into our mind. We can see that refraining from sex is better in the long run. (At least in this example)
We can judge our instincts. It is like getting a second opinion from another doctor. Your mind says 'HAVE SEX NOW' but your 'second opinion'- part of the brain looks at the big picture and can decide NOT to follow the instinct, simply because you possess the ability to 'predict' possible reactions to your action.
Now how can we explain the ability to judge our instincts and even decide not to act on them?!
I would have to say 'evolution' again. Though I don't know WHY yet, this ability must have originated in ancestors that could see problems with responding according to their first instincts. As a primitive human you might have taken the opportunity to mate with a female in an open field. A few second later a cave lion that was hiding in the bushes grabs both of you, and your line of ancestors stops. The couple that decides to look for a sheltered place (like an empty cave) benefits from suspending their instinct, because they can imagine predators hiding in the bushes along an open field. The gene to make this decision will appear in later generations, the 'impulsive' genes of the first couple will end up in the stomache of the cave lion. I imagine that this might have led to our current ability to judge our instincts, instead of acting on it right away.
I would even say that the ability to judge whether or not to respond to instincts is an instinct itself: It can probably (I am just speculating here) be traced back to a specific piece of genetic material that stimulates us to question our first impulses.
Why do we have it, and no other animal has it?
Other animals have it too. The vampire bat we talked about can decide not to respond to the instinct to share food, because he figures that on the long run he benefits more form the food than someone else.
Sea lion males might decide not to attempt mating, because it means he will have to battle the dominant male, who 'owns' all the females in the colony. My (oldest and male and most dominant) cat surpresses the instinct to feed by leaving a few pieces of food on his plate for the other cats to eat: I like to think that this is the same instinct we see in lions today. Dominant male lions are the first of their pride to feed, but they know that they have to leave meat for other members of his social group. (Especially because he doesn't even do his own hunting; the females do). By leaving some food they seem to confirm that they have first feeding rights, but that they are altruistic leaders that care for those that are lower in the hierarchy.
--------
You asked about the goal to better yourself. If you mean 'to better yourself within your life time' I'd say this is the goal of all animals. If you ask about 'to better yourself as a species' I'd have to refer back to my previous post, that says evolution has no specific goals.
Now let me ask you a question in return On My Way:
Here are some questions:
'-How did the universe come into existence'
'-How did first life originate'
'-Where did our emotions and sense of morality come from'
'-Where did our intelligence come from'
I don't expect you to answer them, I just posted them to hear your opinion about them. Do you think it is justified to answer all of these questions with "God did it" ?
EDIT: For those that are interested, here is an article on Atheism/Religion and Morality. I don't want to offend any religious people by posting this, but it might give you a bit of new insight on religion in general.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/harrison_25_1.html