Morals Come From Evolution

If anything, I'd like to start by urging that you keep in mind some basic manners and some politeness. I am offended by your tone of voice. Remember that I am not doing you a service by debating against you, And that we all stand to benefit from a fair debate. I accept wise, Not scathing criticism. I hope you realize that before you start attacking me like that in the coming rounds. I wish to make this clear - what I have said are solely for my side of the debate. Please don't cherry pick some lines which turn the debate in your favor. I'm sure we all would appreciate that. You have misinterpreted my lines in most cases, And I'll quote one of these. "If we humans really blindly follow the morality of our genes, Whatsoever it is that threatens our existence is bad, " Contrary to your limited definition of this line, I wish to show that you are wrong. If our morality really does originate from evolution, Then we will blindly follow this morality, And it may inspire us to take out anything that, In the short term, Seems to threaten us. THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENS. What happens, Instead, Is we have no such intentions. Please don't argue that this itself is an evolutionary trait, Because if that were the case, Other species would blindly attack other species, And we'd have an inter-species war. So, Let me repeat this, In capital letters so that you don't misinterpret it again. OUR MORALS WILL NOT HAVE COME FROM EVOLUTION, FOR IF THAT WERE THE CASE, OUR "MORALITY" WOULD ENABLE US TO UNTHINKINGLY KILL THOSE SPECIES THAT THREATEN US. All around us are examples of this - of the fact that morality is instead defined by ourselves, And that evolution as such has nothing to do with it. I beg of you, PLEASE STOP USING THESE LINES AND POLLUTING THEM BY SAYING THEY SUPPORT YOU. You have said that evolution does not make everybody moral. So, If I am to understand correctly, You believe in a kind of "selective" evolution? Am I to believe that someone who is supportive of the idea that morals come from evolution, Gets evolution wrong in the first place? The fact is, Our morality can never be brought in from evolution - it's like saying our political tastes were influenced by evolution. This of course is wrong - political tastes vary depending on who we associate ourselves with and who we idealize. Evolution simply can't have played a role. Take Hitler. You say he acted counter to morality. Whose morality? Mine and yours? I agree. But it won't be wrong to say that Hitler too had a morality, A morality completely influenced by radical thought. If he were a morally insulated person, He wouldn't have taken steps to eradicate animal cruelty in Germany. If he didn't have a sort of moral stance, He would never have cared for the remaining Germans. Yet his "morality" - I take that back, For the word is like a taboo now in this debate - his "ideology" was completely different. We associate a general morality to acts like helping elders, Or staying healthy, Yet these are only general morals. There are different views of this, You see. Different morals. Something purely natural, Something so scientifically sound as evolution cannot act as something that affects only a few. It's why every human has 2 hands, Not 3. Perhaps in the future, Some variations may make it so, And in the BEGINNING, Only a few may possess 3 hands, But eventually, All humans will have 3 hands. Look at the present - we've been around long enough so much that there is no drastic evolutionary trait, Like a tail in any of us. It's because given this time, All humans have uniformly evolved. Which means that morals too "should have" been the same, Had they been derived from evolution. YET THEY ARE NOT. THIS IS MY POINT. Your obsession with so-called red herrings is also frightfully troublesome for the course of this debate. I asked a serious question there - with your (scientifically verified) claims that the human mind is a product of evolution, You cannot also debate that conscience is evolutionary. I have spent the past 5 minutes making it clear - morality is not derived from evolution. Your math is impeccable. Only that I ask that you copy the ENTIRE sentence, Not just some phrases. To all those who may view this debate after this argument, Take a look at the lines my opponent has quoted - more often than not, They will end with commas, Not full stops. In fact, Some important lines have been severed so much that it seems my opponent took control of my mind and typed for me. And kindly don't talk to me about what a "good debater" must know, As if I am an irresponsible one. If anything, I am a credible debater. I'm sure we need more of those types these days. Now to the main argument that you have posed. You have said, And I quote, "The important part is that the people who don't adhere to morals get weeded out by natural selection. " What morals do you refer to here? Are these the same morals that would trigger us to kill something in our way? Let us say you're ill, And you happen to encounter a mob. You know you must get to the hospital. Again, Assume a situation wherein you must pass through them. The refined mind, OUR MINDS, Will make us get out of the cars, Or make some arrangements so that we can pass safely. The mind obtained from evolution, YOUR MIND, Will drive right through the mob. After all, The mob was in your way. It could have killed you. So are you saying that I, My family and 90% of the world that would have taken the peaceful option would have been wiped out by natural selection for not giving into the "evolutionary morality" you speak of? I'll leave this for those reading to wonder. Also, I am extremely curious as to how natural selection will occur like that. I must also respond to this - " It's Natural Selection. The only reason humans use morality better now is because we evolved in other ways and that made us smart enough to figure out things that Natural Selection was already telling us. No inheritance in this family. " This statement, After all I've said, Gives me the perfect chance to sum up my argument. Morality cannot be influenced by evolution. Evolution is non-considerate of "conscience". Evolution dictates that anything impeding our survival should be removed by us to ensure our survival is unaffected. Natural Selection, No doubt, Is simply this - nature favors the organism that can survive better and adapt better. Morals are different - we identify a set of morals with which we conform. This morality is what prevents us from killing the mob in the above example. Again, Getting back to how there exists a general morality - I truly believe these morals are etched into our minds so much that we find ourselves instinctively helping someone in need to the best of our abilities. If we give this question a great amount of thought, We could develop new moral codes for ourselves. Evolution, Also, Affects all, Especially given that humans have been around for such a long evolutionary time. It's not like the morality gene has selectively awakened in only a few. It's just because morality is uniquely defined by us all, And not by evolution. Here's to a fairer, More disciplined Round 4.