Morals Come From Evolution

"I said cannibalism weeded humans out from evolution because of a disease it gave them. This doesn't happen with black widows, So evolution doesn't weed them out for it. You can say it's immoral if you want. But that's spider morality so it doesn't matter plus the male does it willingly so it's not violating his autonomy. " You really don't understand what I am talking about, Do you? The term cannibalism is not in reference to your argument, That unfortunately had the same word in it. You have cleverly avoided the example of the Black Widow, Since it clearly opposed your topic with sound proof. I wouldn't call that good debating, I just call it cowardice. But I'll continue elaborating - My opponent has, In his arguments, Told us that natural selection led to morals. He has said that our community-spirit, And the need to preserve the entire community for survival of our species led to our morals. This is why, According to him/her, We help others in times of need, Or don't voluntarily hurt others. I have provided sound evidence against this, As is seen in the Black Widow spider. If its morals allow it to kill her partner, Doesn't that mean these morals have no "community feeling" in them? Isn't this ample contradiction to his statement? But of course, He does not deal with this. "They have. They just looks primitive to you because you're a human and you think that intelligence and being big, Etc makes you superior. " It seems my opponent cannot understand long sentences. It is most frustrating, But this sentence that he has chosen for us all was part of a paragraph that sought to contradict his claim that morals were borne of natural selection, And community, Everything I've spoken about above, And contradicted in my previous argument. "Nope, It was natural selection. The beliefs of their culture were a survival pressure and to not follow the no cow policy was counterproductive to one's survival" My Hindu friend recently converted to Christianity, And he now eats beef too. What a shame, Natural selection doesn't take into account religious conversions. But oh well, Your argument is wrong anyway. Even so, As a follower of Hinduism, I can tell you that the choice to eat beef is purely upto ourselves. No evolution involved. "Keep bringing this up and making my point stronger. " Sure. I mean, If you are trying to make me afraid of what I've spoken, Tough luck. I know now that I made the correct statements, For you have not solidly responded to my main argument about black widow spiders. My opponent has spoken of a "murder" gene, For which I am sure the Royal Academy in Sweden would be most excited to give him a Nobel Prize. If there really existed murder genes, Then we'd have some sort of virus plaguing a few people, Who will want to kill before even breeding. Remember, There is no murder gene that switches on or off. What explains the tendency to commit murder is morals. Face it. "It did, That's why there are significantly less murders than non murderers. " So even though "natural selection" killed Hitler before 20 years in power, Murders have not been eradicated by this same selection even after 1, 000 years in existence. I am surprised why Natural selection hated Hitler so much. So yet again, Your point is wrong. "It's not a check and balance system. " This coming from the person who told you that humans can control their "moral intent" as years of evolution have accumulated wisdom in us, Is typically startling. "Because of random mutation. Jeez, Could you at least try to think of the answer yourself before you ask silly questions? " There we go again, His obsession with mutations. Morals have not come from evolution. I HAVE PROVEN THIS BY CONTRADICTING YOUR STATEMENT, WITH SOLID EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO. There are no mutations in one's morals. "Hopefully you take this as a lesson that you shouldn't repeat the same claims that have already been countered. " We have only to see until the votes come in, As to who should take a lesson from this debate. As for you, My friend, I am sure your arrogance will bring your downfall, So try to keep that in control. Allow me to sum up my arguments. 1. I am against the above topic. I strongly believe evolution had nothing to do with morals. 2. My proofs came as contradictions to my opponent's claims. He has not satisfactorily responded to them, As you can see for yourselves. The evidence I have provided are listed - 1. My opponent has said that morals came from natural selection, From the evolutionary inbuilt mechanism of supporting one's community, To ensure survival of the species. I have given evidence against this, In the form of the Black Widow spiders. The females eat the males after mating. My evidence contradicts his statement, As it shows that the female's morals were not built so as to ensure the survival of the male. Also, It's not like the female will die if it does not eat the male. To add, My opponent has not responded to this, Which should mean that he has conceded. Even so, Do consider my evidence, For it rightly proves that he is wrong to assume morals came from evolution. 2. My opponent has also said that natural selection will weed out those with lower morals, Lower referring to the morals that deviate the general, Righteous set. To this, I have put forth a piece of evidence we all are familiar with - murderers. Surely, Their moral capacities allow them to kill others. By natural selection, And since it's been 1000s of years of evolution, They should have been weeded out. But of course, That is not the case. Murderers still live on. After all, If Hitler's morals led him to invade Russia arrogantly, Why didn't that arrogance attack him when he invaded France? After all, He could have also invaded Spain, But he was cautious. My opponent has proposed some kind of "murder" gene, Which definitely is impossible. If there really were a murder gene, It'd be some kind of virus attacking all murderers. They would probably kill others with these genes, And without them. In the end, This gene would perish with those who possess it, For it would be impossible to breed with that bloodthirsty gene. 3. My theory of morals is that morals are defined by us, Subjectively. My opponent had challenged me to provide evidence, And I now do so. Take religion. We all follow different religions. Evolution has nothing to do with the religion we choose, For we can even change our religion from birth. This happens all the time. Further, People following a religion trust the believes practiced in the religion. Take Hinduism, Where its beliefs teach that it is sinful to eat cow meat, While a Christian would have no problem in doing so. The Hindu does not eat, Not because there is a "beef" gene in his body that will kill him the moment he eats beef. Its because his morals, Bred from his childhood, Will not allow him to eat beef. Simply put, Our actions are influenced by morals, Which reflect our beliefs, And our thoughts. Our morals are products of our being, Not of evolution. Thank you very much. This has been an interesting topic to debate on.