Morals Come From Evolution

After reading my opponent's arguments, It has become evident that the definition of morality is ambiguous, Far too much to be debated. Yet for the sake of fair debate, I consider it important that I respond to his/her argument. I would like to reiterate my definition of morality, Especially with regards to how you claim morality was a product of evolution, I would like to demonstrate my alternate belief otherwise. In short, I believe morality can only be defined according to one's ideologies. Why do rules exist? Rules exist because, In our human lives, We seek justifications. Yet can one think the people drafting these rules were perfect beings? In order to justify our existence, In order to protect our ideology, We craft rules. Take the American Constitution - would it be thoroughly fair to have someone who authored a sacred rulebook to have owned slaves himself. Yet we still have Thomas Jefferson, Who while abolishing slavery through his signature on the bottom of the Declaration, And through his own draft owned several slaves. I may be wrong in assuming he "abolished" slavery, But it is true that he owned slaves, And that he sought freedom for all in his document. Rather than a diversion, I wish to point out that the purpose behind creating our codes, Our laws, Our rules and our disciplines is to enshrine our beliefs. We lead transient existences, And to protect that which we consider right, We make laws. I may be countered here by the argument that many people contribute to the rule-making exercise, Both at the time of creating these, As well as in the future, Through amendments. Yet the only way one could respond is by asserting that the basis of it all remains, Regardless of how you look at it. In fact, Morality is much like this - our morals seek to justify what we hold true. Adolf Hitler and the lateral Nazi Party that assumed power in Germany did have a morality. They did consider it rightful that the pure-blooded Aryan dominate all lands, And that the inferior Jew was to perish. Their "morals" told them that it was only correct that these Jews be exterminated. Again, It is not like the entirety of Germany suddenly had their moralities changed due to a change in the power axis - several resisted, And most were taken in by the tide of fear. In the end, We had a serious difference - a morality sparked by radical thought had swept over half of Europe. In your argument, It seems as though in everything we do, Our morals will justify the evolutionary ideals of natural selection, And gene pooling. If that were the case, What, Pray tell, Prevented Nuclear Armageddon? If we humans really blindly follow the morality of our genes, Whatsoever it is that threatens our existence is bad, And worthy to be exterminated by us. Yet this does not happen. Whatever may come in our paths needs to be wiped out. In reality, My statement that one's definition of morals ought to change does nothing to support your view. It basically reaffirms that morality is not some sort of uniform code that all humans have inherited. It all depends on our upbringing, Our experiences. To think that morality is ingrained in evolutionary ideals is, Simply put, Preposterous. I must also point out how you have merely cherry-picked lines to twist my arguments in your favor - "The idea that species have to progress based on the concept of one species being dominant. . . . " is an example. This statement was not contradictory to my basis, Yet it was inferred on a different tone, Based on something else. You have claimed it is wrong to think that our inability to kill a horse supports my point. Well, Let me shoot the question right back at you. If morals are really obtained from evolution, If our progress over these years have really created our morals, Then it would take only some time for us, As highly intelligent creatures, To decide that anything causing discomfort ought to be killed, Or wiped off. Of course, I didn't mean that we kill a horse munching grass in a farm. Let me reframe this - an unleashed dog is barking at you ferociously. The "moral" human you have created through your arguments sees it as a threat to its existence, Owing to its ability to seriously maim us. Now tell me, If our morality really were based on natural selection and survival of the fittest, Why can't we kill it. The answer is clearly not because it was "domesticated" - an evolutionary mind should show no sympathy. Otherwise, The theory of natural selection would have failed at several junctures. In reality, The only empathy such humans would show would be toward others who could allow it to survive further. You have stated that morality came from nature. I agree to this. Yet what is this statement, Apart from merely a distraction from the important question at hand? For that matter, You can claim victory by saying our minds were tuned from evolution, Hence all our thoughts, Including morality are evolutionary. This is blasphemous.