Murder or evolutionism

In Canada USA and many other first world countries murder is considered bad. Though many of the people in the nation are evolutionist witch sates very simply 'kill or be killed' well why don't we have more serial murders... Its like "don't kill it's bad; but um. your great great grandpa who was a cave man killed everyone and thats how your alive." Why can't I just kill whom ever I please... Or why does the school system support teaching us that. Pick one or the other..

Mankind is a social animal. We group together to pool resources for our mutual survival. Evolution does not teach "kill or be killed" it teaches "survive and pass on favorable traits." Over time our environment has been harsh enough to select the genes best suited for our survival; we never needed to kill off less favorable genes ourselves (though this is the dream of eugenics).

Murder is considered wrong because of enlightened self interest. We give up our ability to kill other people with impunity so it will be less likely someone will kill us.

***Though many of the people in the nation are evolutionist witch sates very simply 'kill or be killed' ***

I think you're oversimplifying... killing people isn't a core principle of evolution.

If you're talking evolutionists...then the key word is "evolve"...We've evolved into creatures of extremely high intellect...we no longer run on instinct...we make concious, intellectual decisions about right and wrong. "Kill or be killed" would be an individual life-threatening incident...You can't just kill somebody because they p*ss ya off...

p

"kill or be killed"

I love the way you've taken "survival of the fittest" and changed it to "kill or be killed".
Given the argument is fundamentally unsound and quite ridiculous (where do you get your facts from?), I will, however, answer your question. Society thrives because we have rules and we dont go around killing randomly. It is best for everyone if that doesnt happen, which is why the human race has been able to do so much... If everyone was worried about being murdered, none of the technological advances we have could take place (which is why the feudal society was never able to properly thrive). As for great great grandpa being a caveman, uh no... you're talking about thousands of years of evolution, where we evolved past that, and even then caveman did not go around killing everyone.

"Survival of the fittest" is a short hand method of saying that the more successful an individual is at staying alive and being healthy, the more likely they are to being around to procreate, and the more likely they are to be chosen.

However, evolution isn't even "survival of the fittest".
Evolution has to do with being more successful in creating progeny that could pass on the genetic code.
In America's old West, mules were more fit than horses or donkeys, but were a dead end because they CAN'T pass on DNA (they are 100% sterile).
A mutation that prevented older women from developing osteoporosis would be wonderful, but would have no evolutionary advantage because older women are past child bearing age.

And that brings up a whole other thread of thought.
But for now, take care, stay safe, and
Good Luck!!

bimjob, even your analysis is a simplification. Individuals who survive past their child bearing age can help insure the survival of their genes. Look at societies where grandparents help raise and nurture children. They are past being able to have kids but they are still contributing to their offspring's success. We probably survive as long as we are still useful for the continuation of our genes. Up to a point living longer past our child bearing years could make our own genes more competitive.

Also mules are not 100% sterile. There have been several cases of foals born to mule mares. You are correct that this hybrid is evolutionally a dead end. Descendents of the rare fertile mule mares are horses, donkeys, or infertile mules.

Where do these people come from. This has to be in top 10 stupidest questions on funadvice...