Human Morality as a By-Product of Natural Selection
Is biology or natural selection a valid foundation for our sense of objective right and wrong? Charles Darwin provides us with an interesting “extreme example” of what it means when biology or natural selection forms the foundation of morality:
“If…men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering.”
In similar light, if the actual conditions of our rearing was like that of the Nurse Shark we would bite, wrestle and shove our partners while procreating – which would be tantamount to rape. So to answer the initial question, biology or natural selection cannot provide a valid foundation for objective morals because if our conditions were different, our morals would be different. This renders our sense of good and bad as meaningless and subjective, as it is subject to biological conditions and could have been different if our biological “rearing” was different.
If there are objective morals, then natural selection cannot be a valid foundation, as an objective conceptual anchor would best explain our sense of objective right and wrong. Isn’t this best explained by God?
 Charles Darwin. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Second Edition. New York. 1882, page 99.