Darwinism and adaptation

What is strong and what is weak is not necessarily as easily observable or even "objective" as we take it to be. Rather, the context of the environment and culture determines what is or isn't strong and weak. Put most U.S. citizens into an African culture or environment, and watch them flail. One doesn't even wish them to admit their "moral failings" as there is no meaning or point in it. Their success or failure has nothing to do with morality, but simply with their competency in meeting the circumstances as they actually are. If such an American admits that he is not all-seeing and all-conquering by virtue of his innate nature, then this might better facilitate an adaptation of sorts, but it still doesn't mean that there is any intrinsic virtue in his proclamation of his weaknesses. It just means that he is reducing his arrogance level in such a way that maximizes his chances for adaptation. Whether or not he succeeds in adaptation, even after this adjustment, still has nothing to do with morality, but with social and environmental features.