Morals Come From Evolution

I seriously get that severe tone again. I wonder why you make this so intense, But it is evident that there is no point in pointing that out to you. "I already told you that evolution does not FORCE people to be moral. People do whatever they want and natural selection favors people who take the moral actions. " I think there is a need to understand this statement. Evolution does not force people to be moral. Very true - so I may assume that you believe in checks and balances. Let me try and break down your proof instead of focusing on the numerous instances of deviations from polite speech. You have told us that natural selection has given birth to morals as we know them now, Especially focusing on the community-based development that species require - the entire community is integral in maintaining the survival of the species. Due to this, We have evolved morals. This was your take on morality. Why I believe this is untrue is because natural selection hasn't influenced species that evolved considerably, Even when compared to us humans. This can't be possible if evolution was at play, Correct? After all, You said that in order to disprove you, I had to cite examples in a different species. Latrodectus, Or in other words, The "Black Widow". Infamous for the sexual cannibalism shown by the females after mating, This "moral" does enhance chances of survival of offspring. I'll admit that. But shouldn't all, At least species that have evolved considerably, Such as the Arachnids, Support the community? Is this not an example of a moral that goes against the idea of joint survival? If we are to consider this species, Which I assure you has undergone an evolutionary period comparable to that we humans have undergone, Does it not contradict your stance? Shouldn't they NOT kill? My version of morals is different. I propose, And I truly believe that morals arise from our versions of world view. We define our moral stature based on our beliefs. It is the very same beliefs that prevents Hindus from digging into beef products, While others may not find anything wrong in eating these. Of course, The morals at play here are - you guessed it - humane, Conscience-oriented morals, Not evolutionary morals, For neither would be seriously affected for eating beef. I believe that morals change from person to person, That we can never quote one moral set as the true, Supreme, Evolutionarily chosen one - that is not possible, It is not true. My opponent has told you all that Hitler was killed because our morality, Obtained from evolution, Was superior to his narrow morality. If that were the case, Why do murders still occur? If murderers' "moral codes" allow them to kill, Shouldn't natural selection have automatically weeded them out? Yet, Since time immemorial, We have feared them. Of course, They may have different purposes, But they have moral standings, Far different from ours. After all, Hitler was a murderer too. . . . I would like to analyze this check-and-balance system that will keep "evolutionary morals" at bay if they are too extreme (this is considering that morals ARE in fact products of evolution). No doubt, We have developed far enough so as to be able to self-analyze and meditate on our decisions. Why then do we find ourselves so different? The instance of murderers/kidnappers/pedophiles is a case in point. If these people had an inkling of how severe their crimes were, I am sure we wouldn't find such high rates of crime. Morality itself may serve as a check, When we are, Say, About to do something that goes against it. Do these people have morals at all? Yes, They do, Only that these justify their activities. Has natural selection vanquished such people? Not in our long evolutionary history, Probably never. My opponent has told you that there are no "uniform humans" - yet we all have a basic structure. Of course, I never meant that all humans have striking resemblances. But I am not wrong in saying that it is impossible to find a person with 3 hands. Variations don't go that far. Let us take the excessive body hair, A characteristic in primitive humans. Gradually, A few genetic variations arose, And gradually this phenomenon shrunk in the population. Now, It is odd to find such people, And in any case, This may be due to some weaker strands promoting excess hair growth. Evolution has acted uniformly (in this case, I mean, It has acted upon all sections of population, Which is why there are no ape-humans today, But there may have been back when we started evolving). The flaw that I'd like to point out is in the case of evolutionary morals, There is no flexibility. Sure, Hitler MAY have died because natural selection chose the "evolutionary moral" over his own. Yet did this same "Natural Selection" force Hitler to take the arrogant step of invading the Soviet Union, While ignoring the imminent winter, Which led to the downfall of the Nazis? I highly (logically, Too) doubt it. Richard J. Evans, Who authored the Third Reich At War in 2008, Pointed out that the fall of Hitler approached not because the Nazis were weak in any respects, But because he forcibly decided not to retreat from the Soviet Union. If Natural Selection did that, That is a glorious first in history. Had Hitler been prudential, And had he reserved troops from the Soviet Operation to fight the incoming British, French and American troops, Historians concur that Hitler could have, In theory, Ruled over Germany for at least 10 more years, By which time he could already have integrated half of Europe. This debate, However is not on the Third Reich's fall. This was an attempt to show that natural selection does not really vanquish people with lesser morals. What led to Hitler's fall was not morals, But wisdom, Or more precisely the lack of it. To conclude, I have offered proof by contradiction of my opponent's theory at several junctures in this argument. I don't expect him to debate on a mature, Disciplined tone, Yet I am willing to stand by my argument, At least, Until I am convinced I am wrong. I ask my opponent to answer my questions. If morals were borne off the need to stick with one's community and protect one's community, Why then does the female Black Widow devour the male after mating? You may argue that this is for the offspring but that just confirms my argument, That animals blindly act on the basis of their evolutionary morals. If Natural Selection weeds out people with lesser morals than the supreme morals established by evolution, Why then haven't murderers/criminals committing crimes known in nearly generations like plunder, Kidnap, Rape etc. Been vanquished? To think they have no morals at all is wrong - they are not zombies, Or humans with lesser traces of evolution. I have also clarified by statement of "uniform evolution". Thank you, And I yield the floor to you.