Is survival a loophole of morality?

For me it goes: Looks first, then Brains, then personality.

If they have no looks, I don't bother. If they have no smarts, don't bother. If they have no personality, don't bother.


But they have to fulfill all 3 to some extent.

I would never screw my sister.

I think a better morality question that is a lot more applicable and real is a life or death situation. Given that you're morally opposed to killing, if you were put in a situation where either you killed or were killed, would you do it? I would want to, and try to, but I don't think I could bring myself to it. I would try to like, shoot a guy in the foot if he was shooting at me, then call the cops or something. I just don't think it's my choice to kill.

And this goes back to my morality being a loophole in survival. In nature, it doesn't matter what the threat is, the animal kills it. Then we throw our morals into play, and we just can't kill because it's "just not right" or "I would feel bad about it" and so we die. If that's not a loophole in survival, I don't know what is.