free form thought exchange is exceedingly rare. Especially in a society that favors quotable truth over the real thing. That being said I'm glad to know there are others that favor originality over pedigree.

I appreciate the replies. Take note none of them have the answer to my question. Unless I am interpreting them wrong; both responses no matter how intriguing; rely on a modern form explanatory existence. Not what im after

My question was, how did the conceptualization of good and evil come to be; not the refinement of how it is. Sorry if that wasn't clear in the title im new at this.

Also I was just giving a rudimentary example of how these beliefs could have came to be. Im not saying that is how they are now, obviously.

So you are saying law and order come before the knowledge of what is good and evil? I would saw law was refinded by the initial understanding of what is good and evil. How could we construct a system that dictates what is or isn't with out the knowledge of what is first?

Why muddy the waters with theoretical concepts of good and evil; when we have a perfectly good example of how it affects us here and now.

I'm referring to the interpersonal form, since that is the only one experienced by humans.

The realization that all knowledge is inescapably human.

I don't think rights are given, I believe they are accepted individually, reinforced socially, and shaped environmentaly.

In my opinion people are as free (willed or otherwise), as the consequences they are "willing" to accept.

Good and evil are conceptual in nature, and are a means to describe someone's disposition, or a reasoning for ones actions. Basically they're just adjectives, not our nature. As far as I can tell anyways :).

I think humanity as a whole is in a perpetual state of disillusionment. Self important mechanisms, ideologies, and systems that bring existence down to a place that is palpable for our level conscious understanding.

Superiority in what way exactly. Economically, physically, intellectually, interesting way of thinking. Would you elaborate please

I think Nietzsche was on the right path that ,quintessentially, there are only two types of people at the base of our consciously driven life. There are all kinds of sociological studys on the nature of mans first conscientious choice. Like whether to lead or follow.

This might be a good read for your way of interpreting Darwinism. https://consciouslifenews.com/the-shocking-truth-about-charles-darwin/11102148/ Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver, and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin This as well.

And I did not say sex drove procreation I said the instinct to survive is what drove the act of sex

I said that preference is NOT derived from imperical science. Yet you debate that human procreation is preferential.

Also preference is most definitely not a thing derived from imperical science and that is the stance you are debating for. So I'm confused as to why I'm being told to provide evidence of my stance when yours is the more lofty reasoning? The biological need for information to survive only happens through new life. People have sex to create new life. All I'm saying is if modern theory of evolution is to be believed then instinct is what sex likely
drove procreation in the first place, even for us humans.

Thank you for the insight. I personally I'm not religious. I just cant help but notice the similarities as to why these systems exis; being too give answers to our most sought after questions.

I'm sorry im not trolling I just dont know how to do what you're asking. Freud's theory most definitely applies to this discussion. Nature verses nuture is applicable directly to whether or not ,nature vs nurture, is what drives human procreation.

There is the Freudian theory for starters.

No one can state that procreation as it pertains to humans is definitively preferential or instinctual. How could that be proven without being able to experience both separately then at the same time. Does that make sense? Much like a control study.

How can anyone state that definitively if we have never experienced a life only lived through purity of one or the other?

Nice why of putting that, but how is putting a theory on how things are and how they came to be not the same attempt at bridging the same gap between the known and the unknown; just presented in a different way?

If the need to procreate is only driven by want why are we not the only species on the planet that procreates. Since it would require the ability to preconcieve to formulate a want then nothing else should mate according to your logic, correct?

Having a child at its core is procreation, and what is procreation if not a species DNA instinctual need to pass on a means in which to survive. Just because we have the means to live in a way where basics for survival are an after thought; does not mean that they were never and are not natural motums of our existence.

Reason is not faith based. That is why we still have religion and science, and why they want to be distinguished as mutually exclusive.

That is a good point. Ethics and morality still at their core are ideals ,and there for are up for free from discussion and debate. To furhter that point can you really claim to have one with out the other. I personally am of the mind that you can not. Ethics and morality are so interwoven and integral to the fabric of society. You would have to agree at the very least they play a part in understanding parts of the same field of humanity. Right? I could be wrong. This coming from someone with no schooling beyond high school.

Technically speakingi the term infinite is immeasurable by definition. So your point is valid in the since that the expanse in which we can enhance or perception is infinite. That being said I like to think that perception is bound by universal laws much like how solid matter can never travel at the speed of light.This comment is in response to earlier comments. Also cool topic.

Interesting point but stating religious morality as the only alternative is a little reductive dont you think. Morality is much more complex than a two path ideological frame work. There are other debates intrinsically woven into this discussion that arent present in a religion only base of morality.

I would argue the system created, followed, and implemented, is inherently divisive. Not the people operating with in it, presidents included.

Would say that morality is more akin to an ideal where as kindness is closer to a state of being or disposition?

Even if the misinterpretation of the word kind was present in my friends comment; how was it counterintuitive

That was my friend, sorry about that. They didn't realize the word was being used in the likeness of a group sence.

Being moral and being kind,in my opinion are mutually exclusive.

Ok, very good point. Answer me this; has law in the way that we experience as a society today been around since the dawn of man's known existence? If so I concede, if not, what part of humankinds nature drove us to put in place law?

I more or less think the same.

No thanks, I'm good.

I think maybe you should look up the definition of liberty.

I would say classifying will power as an energy thing dismisses it's complexity.