The one true religion

Even amongst remotely social animals, or isn’t common to find thriving groups where members randomly and senselessly murder reach other. But… humans and animals both do KILL, and most rules and governments and religions in history are fine with that. Most codify who and when it is on to kill or how; or who and when and how are not ok. Murder is just “bad killing.”
So we recognize at a fundamental level that killing is a matter of prudence to survive and thrive in general. An appointed officer kills a criminal of a certain type and through almost all history and all the world- if the crime meets certain social criteria killing that person was “good.” So we encourage behaviors that seem to support a functioning and thriving society, and most of us have some degree of empathy and so we tend to apply some version of that to the concepts of “good” and “evil,” but it becomes semantics.

In modern times the concept of “marital rape” or the ability to rape a person who has somehow consented previously or acted in a way suggesting consent to sex is debated at times as to wether or even exists. We can find in modern times and especially in history instances where acts we would consider rape flatly, we’re not considered “evil” or perhaps even “bad.” But- rape is throughout history generally bad and generally a crime. Rape is generally not conducive to a stable and thriving society. It is just the case that contextually to culture, the DEFINITION of rape changes. The same as the definition of theft or murder or adultery or infidelity changes. Some things are fairly universal and others less so. In any cases WHO is doing it changes if something is a crime or “bad” or “good.”

So I would say that if we ignore the idea of deities, there may still be absolute and objective morality, but our social acceptance and perception of morality largely is an iterative collection of things seen to support a society thriving and those not; or more cynically things which support the thriving of those in power or control of information and things that do not. In that sense that distinction is largely arbitrary- the concept of personal morality versus group morality illustrates this. If your personal morality disagrees with a group morality- especially to extremes- the most likely outcome is being pushed away or out of the group or being punished or coerced to comply with the morality of a group who has the strength to overpower you. Thusly regardless of mechanism, it is natural consequence that the formation of stable groups is based upon social contract and where a stable long term group exists, those who are not like minded or sufficiently compliant, or excessively..

.. disruptive, would be removed from the group. In short- in a society, one either maintains a degree of compliance by choice to benefit from the society or one is generally removed from the society, the net effect of either being that a concept of acceptable conduct and thus “good” and “bad” is self created and enforced off a majority which will generally and naturally evolve their code of conduct with a bias to serving their self interest. If you want to be able to own a home, you generally need to create rules to allow others to own a home to serve their self interest. Those served by rules will support and enforce those rules. Those able to support and enforce generally have a power advantage such as strength of numbers or combined strength or leverage, that’s intrinsically how they create and enforce rules. The question is merely in how one coerces compliance from those who aren’t directly benefited by codes of conduct. Force and management of perception are classic and

fundamental choices and we can generally say pretty much every know system of society has functioned like this. Confucian ideals of familial piety or other social attitudes and customs are an example of managing perceptions. Cultures and systems where various groups like ethnic groups or sexual orientations are identified as “evil” or “sick” manage the perceptions of people the a bias against those things and leverage those perceptions for control.
Lies and propaganda, nationalism, fear, misinformation, many ways to manage perceptions so that people tend to act in the way that is if greatest benefit to the groups with greatest control. Force ranges from the armies of kings and dictators that keep the people in line as much or more than protect against or conquer foreign lands, but modern police and prisons and even economic means like controlling employment or business opportunities are examples of compliance by force. You self comply naturally, against threat of force, or by force.

Thusly I would offer that non theological morality is not the tools evolved to create a society but the tools evolved through social behavior based on prudence and power.
To that same ends- most religious morality,
Especially abrahamic morality- @general_failure mentions 4 commandments saying listen to the boss. They all basically say that in implication-
They are commandments after all,
Not suggestions or ballot items.
Most but especially abrahamic morality is founded on the concept that anything god wants or says or does is good, and anything else is bad. This is why so many sects of these religious pop up with concepts of demons and such in mechanisms never held in the core traditional faiths. As ways to easily explain the “bad.” When god killed ever 1st child in Egypt to flex on a king- that was “good.” Because that was gods will and gods doing.

So religious morality tends to be simple. IF a messiah or a deity themselves came tomorrow and IF that being told everyone the rules have changed and they need to rape, rob, and kill their way to rapture- that would be the new good. I say this not pejoratively but as a simplification- religious morality is a dictatorship- God says, and that’s what is. Your feelings do not apply. Your opinion is wrong because abrahamic god is perfect and good to the core and you are not. So if you disagree with god, you would be wrong. And if we now entertain a world where this god is unquestionably real and accepted by everyone- that would make total sense. What kind of ego maniac would you have to be to face an actually
PERFECT AMD INFALLIBLE being and be like: “I think you’re wrong about this man..” that’s pretty much the entire main story of Adam and Eve. They lived in perfect paradise and did everything god said everyday and didn’t ask questions and life was good and there was no “bad.”

They ate a fruit from the tree of knowledge OF GOOD AND EVIL and them decided that even though god had said being naked was fine for them- it was “bad.”
Simply: they started making moral judgments on their own. Those judgments conflicted gods judgments. The PERFECT and good deity who can’t be wrong. So
Of course the flawed humans were wrong. Because humans make mistakes and perfect gods do not.
It’s that simple. In most religion but especially abrahamic religion- good is that god or the defining power of the universe says if good. Sole arbitrator.

Now-
In reality we have to combine those things. Religion and morality through history interplay. Religions are shaped by morals of the time and shape those morals. In turn people Seeking the power to manipulate people’s behavior to suit their interests have and sometimes do use religion and the manipulation of religion or perception of religion to move the concepts of morality to better serve their self interests. The other scenario not yet addressed that this brings up is the one where we use “good and evil” or “good and bad” as justifications- we find ways to justify things we do using morality. this is a riff on what has already been discussed and falls under self interest largely. Power both is and requires control. The fundamental control is force.
Those in power to be in power need to be able to exert force discretionally while mitigating use of force against them. It is prudent to be able to execute or effectively exile dissidents and disruptive for example. That said-

Even if people had perfect judgment and never made mistakes identifying crime and the criminal etc, a law that allows you to “kill all embezzlers on sight” would be very bad to pass of you are in a position to make a law and are currently or might one day break that law and face punishment. The more power is given to the people, militias Vs. State military and police etc- the less control you have, the less force is yours and more is theirs. One who desires to maintain control is wise to be deliberate in how they distribute power. Force is social as well- those who break social rules and morality are often marginalized or shunned. So how does one leverage force when needed but mitigate the chances of force being leveraged against them? Morality is convenient to their ends. God may kill every person on earth because god thinks that is what needs done and be above reproach, morally good. You cannot kill one person because you felt it was right. Governments can kill who they need killed,

For whatever goals or ends they have- you cannot. Same principle. Same morality. It is bad to kill, a traditional punishment for killing or torture is killing or torture. People might cheer when a killer is killed. In history and even modern day people watch killers be killed. We call it an execution usually- a special word often meaning “good killing.” It’s justified. The morality is clean. What is justifiable to meet with death changes time and place. Over there, a petty thief is killed and people say “good.” Over yonder a thief isn’t killed unless they steal cattle or larger and yonder still executions for any crime are cruel so they lock you in a drab box to wither away and eventual die of “natural causes” so they can say “we didn’t kill them. We are good.”

in any of those places 10 years before or 10 years after they might have totally different ideas on what would be “good” in dealing with the same criminal. Where we eliminate cynicism or power structure and hypothesize a collective of equal agreement- we still arrive at self interest. We see this in democratic society. States legalize drugs where the majority of average people are either concerned that THEY would be punished for being “bad” for having those drugs, or where they do not feel it is morally bad to have or use those drugs. This is a process of normalization. This is that evolution I spoke of. The natural sorting of morality by attrition.
Most people consider themselves “good.” We do not want to think ourselves “bad.” Things you rely on or care deeply for- you are unlikely to label bad. Self evident truth. A room full of people who love beer or need it to get through the week aren’t going to likely call drinking bad and a room full of people who never drink or hate..

drinking will likely say it is bad. Of course it has good and bad attributes like most things- but those who like a thing tend to favor it’s good over it’s bad and those who don’t tend to favor the bad over the good. Those who do have strong self interest- a desire to keep access to what like like without consequence, to avoid change, to not have to see themselves as bad, and those who do not have no reason to not label it bad as they aren’t at risk of consequence or change and are only validated in how good they are. Gun lovers live guns and tend not to want to have them taken or admit they might be part of a problem. Gun haters don’t use or own guns and other than benefits see no change or downside from labeling guns as bad.
Many examples- but our concepts of morality tend to lil both define and be defined by our behavior.

It isn’t surprising that you can generally assume that people who enjoy homosexual acts tend to be less inclined to identify them as bad and people who don’t tend to be more inclined to see them as good. But there are people who are homosexual and have great shame and lots of people who are strongly heterosexual and don’t see homosexuality as bad- so what about that? Easy. While our morality is influenced by our instinct- in a vacuum alone a person may even develop morality solely on instinct more akin to animal nature- without much concept of shame or good or bad if we assume morality isn’t inborn or absolute- we are not in a vacuum and as said- social morality influences our morality too. I don’t know if any cases of someone raised in an environment where homosexuality was completely normalized and accepted who felt shame about it. Likewise- and the other leg of morality…

Empathy. Well- I don’t know if that the right word as it goes beyond the strict definition to combine actual relatable experience- but let’s say empathy. That will come up later. The so called “golden rule” found in variants across time and place- some version of “do unto others as you’d have done unto you…” a flawed sentiment in that it assumes others feel and thing as we do, but the concept here is is that our ability to either have compassion for the perspectives of others without having experienced their perspectives, or to relate or understand the perspectives of others through the lens of our own experiences and perspectives, is perhaps the closest thing to “universal morality” that can be studied and doesn’t exist in an abstract or faith beyond our currently observable world.

A heterosexual can generally relate to the desire for companionship or intimacy from someone you are attracted to even if they can’t relate to being attracted to or intimate with someone of the same sex. A free person can in some way relate to the idea that being enslaved would suck, to put it mildly and simply. A person who has never done drugs maybe can’t understand the pull of addiction or the feelings of withdrawal but can understand that what they see and hear from most in that situation is that there is pain and various miseries associated. How we moralize this compassion can vary- so we consider it good and kind to aid an addict in getting substances and supplying conditions to alleviate their suffering and mitigate self harm and social harm; or is that “bad” and “good” is to try to force them one way or another to kick their habit and get clean to be truly free of the suffering or brings? Different people feel differently and there are mor than just those examples for options-

but the idea there is that not only can people have the same compassion and general moral concept and come to dramatically different conclusions- but they may even feel BOTH and the circumstances where one applies or the other vary. Perhaps they feel you should try to force people to quit but if they don’t progress an amount after a time or meet certain criteria you can assume they won’t likely quit or aren’t ready and you should ease their suffering until that time THEN help force them to quit? This shows the complexity of personal morality- some part guides by self interest, some part guided by perceptions, some part guided by experiences and in nuance to that, some part guided by the morals one has lived around or is living in at the time. A complex web of morals informing society and society informing morals. And here’s the kicker…

Those things change! What is in our self interest not only changes with age and circumstance, but it changes with society. 20+ years ago a morality of modern inclusivity and feminism in most industries would work strongly and almost universally against a person. Today the morality of 20+ years ago is more likely to harm than help on the average in those same places.
Across the globe after WW2 as often happens on smaller scales after many wars- lauded heroes became moral pariahs under shifting cultures and politics, and so called “monsters” and “evil people” became “friends” and “good guys.” This is the convenience of morality. There are some cases of staunch and unwavering morality- but many times this is just as “bad” as convenient morality in that it can prevent change and growth. This is how many become “old bigots” and such as their rigid morality fails to keep up with the times.

Because… as we covered- on leg of morality is prudence and normality. These things change. At some point we believe the entire human population was reduced to a few thousand people. At that time- not having babies would likely be not prudent to thriving as a species or society and perhaps seen as “bad” and thusly perhaps homosexuality might not have been in vogue as an exclusive way to conduct oneself. The family unit was critical and so forth… but fast forward to a post industrial world with resource issues and more and more people choosing to not have kids and more and more the family unit and even the idea of a traditional family with a marriage and kid and such falling away and… the morality has largely shifted. While on the whole modern society doesn’t hurt greatly for the loss of any one life- we have lots, there are localized disruptions and if murder was legal and accepted, if each person kills only one other in their life we still would halve the population for each generation

Of course in olden times when there were far less people and higher mortality rates and people often were more dependent on each other, the social cost of a life was often higher provided that life wasn’t someone who had little social use or production. But regardless, almost everyone has someone or could see having someone they wouldn’t want taken from them- even if that person is themselves. Thusly we can easily see why murder is almost universal “bad” and likely always will be. It is disruptive on a micro level even if not a macro level and critically- each individual who might have some say in shaping rules and morality has great self interest at the least in their own life to prohibit the random taking of life.

So some things change with time and place and some don’t- but there is a distinction between the convenience of morality and morality of convenience.
Morality can be convenient in its potential plasticity, convenient morality is when a person changes their fundamental morals or what they advertise as their morals, to suit their convenience. What is the difference? That sounds the same? Arguably it is philosophically. Understanding the difference is a key point in understanding our own selves and morality I feel though.
Most people, I like to believe and feel I have observed- their fundamental “morals” change very little if at all. It’s nuance and expression and interpretation that change. A killer who vows and lives to never kill again- why did they kill the first time? Was it that morally they thought killing was “good” and now they think it is “bad”? Most likely not. Most likely they didn't understand the act or the choice the same way. More likely the moral implications of..

.. killing weren’t considered much or at all- the killing was an expression of their morality. Maybe you kill some one for cheating on you or cheating with your partner. You Jill someone for stealing from you, you Jill someone for trying to kill you, you kill someone to steal from them, you kill someone because you felt it was disrespectful that they spoke to you or acted a certain way etc etc.
you didn’t kill them as a moral decision, you killed than because you were making a decision of emotions or prudence or other morality. You might kill a cheating partner in a fit of rage- raw instinct and or emotion without moral consideration. Upon consideration you recognize that was morally wrong. Your morals don’t actually stop you from acting against them, and you don’t need to come to a moral determination to act. No baby contemplates the morality of breathing or feeding before they do it the first time (at least as far as I know..)

So that’s one answer. Another is that you are expressing morality. People kill often to “punish,” to remove someone they see as toxic or whom they have judged to have breached their personal morals and acted in a way that they feel warrants death. That could be infidelity of that persons morals are such, betrayal, theft, insult… rape or pedophilia are two that people often say they would, or actually do kill for out of pure moral recrimination. To back down a notch we also have “honor amongst thieves” or some senses of morality or conduct even among those who recognize they generally conduct their lives in ways that are immoral or seen as such. Pedophiles (again) are often killed in prison by hardened murders and all manner of convicts because that’s a line that even amongst stone killers, rapists, sadists, etc. most find repugnant. Famously, the “Mexican Mafia” sent word out at a height in drive by shootings killing bystanders and innocents that if you went to jail for a drive by…

.. they would see you were killed. There are various codes of morality among blue and white collar criminals and various “rouges” and “scoundrels.” Soldiers are generally not killing machines and while they often go into urban areas of total war, even when trying to kill each other, enemy combatants often have morality they follow, personal or institutionally mandated, on who they kill and how and such. All this feeds into the concept- morality has a level of interpretation. We touched this earlier but two people can agree stealing is wrong but may disagree on what is “stealing.” To take fruit or flowers from someone’s yard? To use their car and not put gas back in? To take an item you find in the street “lost”?
In fact.. a common definition of stealing would say taking samples from store bulk bins would fit the definition of stealing when the store doesn’t offer or you didn’t ask for a sample-

but the practice itself has classically and largely been defended by many who would otherwise call actions fitting those same criteria otherwise theft, but would say “taking a sample from the bin isn’t stealing.”
We are prone to do things like speed in our cars because we “are safe about it” or “it is warranted” or whatever reason- but see others do such things and claim they are putting people at risk for example. We are often hypocritical in our morality, or expression or application of it. This so the difference. That while our core morals might stay the same, the way we perceive the world and thusly how and where we apply our morality can be subjective and fluid. Oftentimes we already have, or come up with, justifications for how an application of morality isn’t hypocritical. It only has to convince us but we usually hope on some level others but it too in order to help reinforce our self deceptions and create a strong perception of reality as we want to see it.

Cheating is bad, but what you did to your spouse wasn’t cheating because… or given the specific emotions and various circumstances what you did wasn’t cheating or was justifiable etc etc. and that’s the convenience of morality. Convenient morality is where you thought cheating was bad last week but you wanted to cheat this week so you changed your mind. So convenient morality is a lack of conviction or a fabricated morality and the convenience of morality doesn’t require your convictions to change or waver- it merely requires you to change your perceptions even subconsciously as we tend to automatically do as our perceptions are filtered through our internal lens.

As said earlier they are largely ultimately the same in at least regardless of intent or conviction, any one persons expression of morality and idea of right and wrong can deviate wildly from what one might expect based on their core values or past statements. Religion being one place that almost always requires interpretation. Many religions and theologies and such have a core component of the faith regarding contemplation- examination of texts to discern truths. Many others rely on words from decime beings and have organizations like clergy or prophets and such to act as intermediaries and interpret or translate or speak on behalf of their dirties and such. Of course there is very little hope in most cases of getting independent confirmation that the moralizing of holy speakers is indeed divine and accurate,
So that can cause problems.

Of course there is another element when we speak to control. We spoke on how rulers and individuals and groups with power and/or Majority can use morals religion and other means to influence people- but there is also an argument that at various times in various places, common morality is itself a tool of repression.
Think of much modern western morality. Now think of wealthy and generally socially
And financially successful people. You might notice much popular morality contradicts not only what is often said to be the path to success, but what is historically demonstrated to be the behavior of successful people. Stock traders and business moguls and world leaders by and large do not wait their turn for things. They do not exercise meek humility. They do not prude and reward intent and trying hard in themselves. They do not see hard work as its own reward or always leave some for others. They do not tend to be totally honest or prize that trait. They do not generally concern..

.. themselves with acting fairly or even “rightly.” They most often do not practice empathy universally. The most successful people, statistically, tend to be results oriented people. They cúrrate and manage relationships based on need or potential meed. They get results and tend to care more that others get results than how they get them. They tend not to make decisions based on right or wrong but on a cost benefit analysis and probabilities. They tend to try to get all they can as opposed to be fair, under the assumption you will do the same and it will balance out or they will get a better deal and either is fine. It isn’t that they have no morals or never exercise more traditional morality- but they tend to operate in a goal oriented fashion with loose or mailable morals or a conception of morality that suits their ends. They are not classically “good people” but can be justified as such if one desires to.

They didn’t generally grow up with a moral imperative that everyone having fun was more important than winning, or they outgrew those ideas. This isn’t an indictment- the argument of this morality holds that many morals are part of a mechanism of control. Through social indoctrination a set of rules are disseminated in the form of self enforced morality that is burgesses by wide adoption and thus social reinforcement. If the mail guy acts like the CEO with the same competency and ability- unless they are a prodigy they are generally fired and/or cast off by their peers, in large part because the social and moral fabric of their peer groups and the expectations are different. What is largely seen as “shady” in many “blue collar” work places might be seen as normal or required in an executive setting for example.

The “rules of the game” are different. A CEO does not generally make a career by being the best worker or even a good worker. They do not generally get promoted by following the workplace rules and such so much as by getting results. Specific sorts of results. It isn’t that there are no rules they follow to get there- there are some rules or conventions that are fairly universal- certain politics and interpersonal rules that are paths or requirements to success or better profesional results in most fields- but there are differences. Liabilities and such. There are few cases where a cashier can have such great results in their job that regular tardiness of hours is tolerated- but many careers- results oriented careers- a technician or a CEO- if you can exceed what was expected of you by 200% and only show up for 3 hours a day- generally you are forgiven because someone showing up 8+ hours can’t generate half your results.

If an automotive technician can do 100 oil changes in a day and their peers do 10, and the average technician has 1 complaint on their work a week and the tech doing 100 has 1 or less a week- or maybe even 7 a week- their numbers and the profit they create are untouchable. Most businesses won’t ask how if they suspect they don’t want to know. If that person can consistently deliver without causing problems, they are a golden child. The same is largely true in white collar business. Whereas many jobs will swiftly discipline or terminate for breaking the letter of the rules or breaking laws, many higher profit related roles don’t care. If they are shielded from liability and/or the results are good- if they can plausibly claim ignorance they will. If you are doing wrong here and there it is likely to be ignored. I worked with an executive who embezzled allegedly millions over years. When I left that job he was still an executive. The board knew. The executives knew. Jr. Executives and..

even some of the upper level office workers or connected ones knew. I want to be clear- he was stone cold stealing from the company, the allegedly part is how much he stole. The way he did it made it difficult to get an exact amount but… allegedly millions. It hurt his career, he missed some promotions and had to do some favors and suck up and got crap projects dumped on him for years to recover, but not only wouldit be a scandal- but the amount he was stealing wasn’t enough to offset what he was brining as profits on top. He was critically important and he got things done. The end result was he was called up and they basically worked it out as a “bonus” and clipped his nuts a bit. That was the short of it. Be the best low level or mid level employee in the world and area $50-5000 and with rate exception- you aren’t likely to keep your job and get a new bonus plan for it.
So there are differences in these worlds traditionally. Informal rules and class and trade specific morals.

And there is an argument- and I’m not saying I’m supporting it, but it has been made, that morals can and perhaps do also act at times as sorts of controls to help maintain a separation in advantage or status between groups. I mean- I’ve said before and will say again- most adults, if they were sent back to grade school or pre school probably couldn’t function. It wouldn’t be long before they’d likely find themselves in all manner of trouble if they conducted themselves with the same morality as they do in adult life because we largely seem to have certain wide spread ideas on at least some central morals to teach children but we grow up and all of a sudden we seem to forget those things apply to us or something. It becomes more about grabbing our shot and out time and what we want and getting to our goals and protecting what we have etc. It’s common to tell children not to bring toys or snacks unless they bring enough to share, to not brag or show off… but… when was the last time..

.. another adult came in with their new gadget or watch or purse or car or what not, probably showing it off or bragging either blatantly or a bit discreetly.. and did they bring enough for you? It’s a bit of a silly example but even coffee? Sometimes maybe? Overall we just… largely drop that stuff to some degree but to others or stays with us. Isn’t that a bit odd? Teaching kids these morals WHILE concurrently we are not practicing them, often specifically because they stand between us and various successes in life? That is one view anyway. Morality is… a deep and complex subject. It’s subjective for sure, open to interpretation as we have different experiences in life and different outlooks and perceptions. Most of all because there isn’t a central authority we can directly consult as a group to tell us in real time plain English what is “right and wrong” “good or bad” etc or what morality is or anything really. Not in some absolute and unimpeachable sense.

An appeal to many religious outlooks on the matter, especially those like abrahamic religion- is that morality is absolute and codified by a perfect and unimpeachable being. That one simply must strive to live and adhere to a certain code and one can claim moral correctness. That one can fail at that code so long as they make a genuine effort to embrace it and perhaps make penance when they do not.
The concept of “mortal sin” is itself inherently unpopular throughout religion- an idea that there is irredeemable bad that damns one forever with no possibility for redemption. Various faiths eschew the concept all together. Catholics as an example use confessions and repentance as a way to “re establish” a severed connection from divine grace.
Now- it could be a coincidence but it does seem odd that there tends to not be an irredeemable evil in most religions unless death is prescribed for such deeds- convenient or pragmatic let’s say- in that obviously if you tell someone they are..

.. totally screwed and can never not be screwed and take away every hope and benefit they have to following the rules that from that point on they have no reason to follow the rules save their image morality. Yet even in parisons where a crime was so severe the prisoner has no possibility of reprieve- they tend to use perks and the like to maintain order, compliance, control. And of course- the mortal sinner is not only redeemable and can not lose anything and keep all the perks and promises… but to gain this forgiveness requires one to comply to the church, submit to them, and continue support and adherence or be forever damned. Very convenient for those in power and relying on support within the church hierarchy. But then… again to use the Catholic Church- they have, and have used- excommunication- barring one from the church. This is a medicinal penalty- you can return to the church through various means of penance- but you cannot be absolved of the sin which led to excommunication

until after rejoining full communion, and you cannot receive the other sacraments either, which according to the church are necessary for salvation. Thusly excommunication is the act of enforcing damnation unless an individual submits to the church. Disobedience to the church can be a grounds as well as other offenses not clearly outlined in the scriptures of the faith but subject to interpretation by persons of authority in the church.
Now- this isn’t an indictment of Catholicism nor a comprehensive relating of Catholic ritual- the seeming convenience of the whole thing could also be evidence of a very efficient system created by the will of their deity. That said, that is a matter of perspective. Wether there is or is not a universal morality- humanity historically and presently doesn't seem to universally recognize it or follow a singular morality.

Those things that tend to be universal or fairly universal tend to be easily explained through prudence. In general evidence seems to suggest that morality as expressed in these cases follows logically to a progression of following of instinct and codification of denial of instinct as is most conducive at a time for the functioning and advancement of individuals- and we adapted fairly early in our known biological evolution to the fact that the individual was most successful when working with a group. Thusly common rules and adaptations to facilitate group participation and cohesion or stability would naturally result.