I think it's safe to say that Midgley doesn't exactly offer a "short answer to the question of where ethics comes from". Supposing she did, then I"d hate to see her long answer to questions! But that's beside the point. Many of my classmates have stressed that this reading was difficult to fully understand and follow. I agree. She does a very poor job at clearly stating her arguments and validating those arguments with concrete evidence. But in her defense, I do think that she brings up many arguments and leaves them open-ended, perfect and ripe for discussion. .
Midgley writes about "immoralism" existing in a conflict free society. Although I don't totally comprehend this notion, I still find grounds to disagree with her arguments presented. I do not think that a society, as we classify them, could exist without morality. Even in a "conflict free society" there would be interactions that would involve helpfulness and co-operation, a notion of goodwill. For me, these qualities found in interactions can be classified as a piece of morality. The only time when "immoralism" could truly exist is in solitude. I think she touches on that issue somewhat in paragraph 19-20, but in my opinion, her objections toward it are weak.
One of the central themes of her work was that humans are an animal and must not be placed on a level different from that of other animal kind. Taking a biological standpoint, I agree that humans are simply another animal in the hierarchal system we call the animal kingdom. Yet, humans tend to view themselves as being superior to others within this classification. Is this wrong? As humans, we have to mentality that human species (our own) are superior to any other species. This train of thought is based on the predisposed competitive nature and attitude that we possess of the "survival of the fittest." While some may argue with me, I feel that all species often view their own as something special and superior to others, to an extent.