What is the source of morality?

Source of Morality
In our group we discussed it and we voted "Social and political traditions" and I partially agree. However, there is another option that can be the greater source to it, "Human Nature". We humans are the ones that created society and politics, we are the ones that determined where, how, when, what, etc. We are the ones that created religion as well, which is for most people the source of morality. Which sometimes is emphasized by politics and society. We humans created/discovered science, religion, society, etc.
It is easy to say that religion is the source of morality, yes religion is because it shows whats right or wrong. Politicians do the same "He is doing wrong, I will do right...". Society says this wrong and the society believes it. But where is does society and politicians come from? where does religion come from? not from God, but from human beings. Yes there might be a superstitious belief that the human that created all these could be God, ofcourse its all a matter of believing, but we can never be too sure of that. But we can be sure that human nature is the one that created such things, hence is the source of morality.

"Eating meat is moral because people naturally eat meat for food"

meat/mēt/Noun

1. The flesh of an animal as food.

2. The flesh of a person's body: "put some meat on your bones!".

According to the definition above its flesh of an animal or person. Makes sense since we humans are considered as animals as well, obviously more evolved intellectually and physically than other animals. However eating meat is completely wrong, in my opinion. Since we are animals (according to 1) and its a person's flesh (according to 2) we are basically eating ourselves. In most countries we are committing a crime, which is physically killing other human beings for ur selfish desires, the law in certain countries can sentence to be hanged. We are eating meat, another organism...how would u feel if there is another evolved species that started to eat us human beings as food. We start to decrease in size, and that is whats happening...animals are becoming extinct or endangered because we choose to eat meat. Being a vegetarian is completely different, you can eat a plant by taking its seeds and planting it. Eating one and growing +/- 10 more! Have you ever heard of the famous phrase "Eat your green vegetables" the correct amount of those does give the correct of energy needed and its healthy for earth as well and for other organisms. 

Ask yourselves, if there is no one in this world and ur all alone surviving somehow and you have captured a chicken and to eat it you have to cut off its head. But before that u have to see it suffer, for it to tremble in pain because it knows that u will be killing it. Would u be able to cut its head off? and on the other hand u have a plant which u can plant its seeds to grow 10 more plants for ur further meals, would u rather eat the chicken, whose population would decrease as it takes more time to reproduce for animals than for plants, or a plant whose reproduction speed is faster and benefits both u and the earth!? 

To what extent is knowledge gained in Mathematics similar and/or different to knowledge gained in History?

Mathematics is not only PEMDAS or BODMAS, it is also involved in patterns. Similarly in History, we study patterns of same actions throughout the past. However the actions itself has nothing to do with Mathematics only the pattern of it does.

Is Mathematics discovered or invented? Argue your point of view.

Mathematics is partly invented and partly discovered. In other words, it is developed. The principle bases of Mathematics is discovered because they were always there, however the theories and formulas have been invented to prove the principle bases of mathematics. Take 1+1=2 for an example, that is there....it has only been discovered. However, the Pythagorus theorem has been invented based on observation of a triangle and realization of patterns. In conclusion, Mathematics has been developed.

According to a well-known adage, 'history is written by the victors'. How different do you think it would be if it were written by the losers instead?

"History is written by the victors"
This statement is mostly true, most of the History we learn is written by the victors. Lets take the I.B DP History HL at European School for an example, all the text books used in class on the World Wars + Treaties are mostly written by Americans or British. It would be really different if it was a loser who wrote those text books, it might show the other side of the story of the situation. A student cannot find the truth by only looking at one side of the story, the student has to look at both ends to pick out the truth. Obviously if only the losers would write history, they would describe the victors as evil (most likely). Therefore its very important to look at the story from both ends with equal value.

3 History K.I

1. To what extend is science dependent on history.
2. To what extend is modern day truth dependant on history.
3. To what extend is history important to our lifes.