From an evolutionary point of view, isn't morality a disadvantage?

>falling for the group selection is just a meme meme

lol, that picture was made by a retard who doesn't understand evolution.

Worse they don't realize that all sorts of things coexist despite having a common ancestor.

>OP: lol we should wipe out chimpanzees. In fact we should wipe out all animals because humans are da best.
Keep being a retard, OP. This is gold.

>>7804171
No; old discussion is old.

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, if you actually read it, fully explains this, though it's now a little dated.

Read the fucking book if you're going to start quoting it, in it he explains numerous examples of animals being "moral" to each other. How it's still beneficial because evolution only works through genes, which all organisms in a species or population share to some small degree. So if you're helping your child, you're not being moral and going against evolution, you're still helping at least 50% of your own genes survive as well. That's why it's called the selfish gene, because it doesn't just apply to one single individual. Seriously you're post is ignorant as shit.

>>7804171
>The goals of evolution

Anyone who talks about goals in the context of evolution doesn't know enough about the subject to have an opinion. Evolution has properties and mechanisms, but it definitely doesn't have a destination in mind.

>>7804171

Without morality, there is no cooperation. Without cooperation, there is no civilization. Civilization is an EXTREMELY successful strategy. A "population of sociopaths" is not even possible.

Also,
>morality leads to abstaining from procreation

Procreation involves an enormous amount of altruism.

And
>Animals don't know morality.
Also a ridiculous statement.