Are you basically referring to the "social contract" idea in your own words?

A simple definition is "an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects."

And here's a more in-depth explanation:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/

Observing young children can be enlightening in this respect. My nieces appear to agree with one another for the sake of establishing fairness and equality. Wars can happen in any situation in which they perceive that fairness and equality is no longer possible.

Humans come before society. Society gave them opportunities to evolve intellectually. Co-operation and it’s benefits seem to me to be the glue. That co-operation is a kind of agreement, isn’t it. So I can go along with there being a human agreement being the first.

But somehow it begins to break down over distance. Or is that just over differences? There seems to be a perceived threat from something different. Which is understandable. I feel that one has to get some benefit from an agreement, even if you make trade offs. An agreement might be reached between tribe or village, but country to country is a problem. For one you don’t even know who they are except what you’re told. Imagine North Koreans trying to understand us. Is distance, then, the problem.

It just occurred to me that suddenly I realise that agreements are being made on my behalf without consultation.

It's a practical emergence of ways of functioning.

An individual or group of individuals might decide their way of functioning is to give away everything they come into ownership, except what they need to survive. This puts them in trouble whenany supply of resources isn't attainable, so they have nothing to fall back on, so either they change their way of behaving, or they end up living on the street, or they die....so that mode of behaving doesn't survive and spread well in society.

An individual or group of individuals might decide that they will behave in a way which exploits all manner of means to obtain what they need and excess too. This might bring them into conflict with other parts of society, if they end up breaking existing laws...this mode of operation, seems to be sustainable to some extent, as there is always the possibility of storing resources, and as long as there is a society to exploit, there may be avenues of obtaining resources.

If the exploitation mod becomes too prevalent in society, then society begins to break down, which leave fewer and fewer avenues for the exploiters to obtain resources.

So there is always an emergent form of behaviour within society, with a play off mainly between the creators of resources, and the exploiters.

There may be various philosophies that individuals or groups, have which lead them to behave in one way or another., though..

Law also emerge to try and sustain the production of resources.

But if it doesn't affect the production of resources, it seems like one society is quite capable of exploiting another society, eg the production of materials, the mining of minerals, in other countries that us slavery....so this makes me think the behaviour of any society is based mainly on what sustains that society, and less based upon some moral philosophy.

'do unto others as you'd have done to you' gets turned into 'you can't do it to me(because you are a poor slave in a foreign country), so I can do it to you'...and I don't have to do anything about it, as I am just following the mode of my own society.

As to 'agreement', all you have to do is choose your own mode of behaviour, there isn't really any need to agree to anything, is there?

As to 'agreement', all you have to do is choose your own mode of behaviour, there isn't really any need to agree to anything, is there? — wax

or maybe that is too cynical and simplistic.
There can be all sorts of agreements going on, like an agreement that two entities share certain beliefs, values etc..

Agreements on how two entities will interact in future.etc

I think any idea of society being moral must mean that morality is emergent from individuals in society, so the morality of the society is based upon the morality of its individual members, which comes back to personal responsibility.
Do you take responsibility for any exploitation you might participate in by buying products made using slave labour, for example?

I just thought, some of the agreements that go on in society are like:
'I'll turn a blind eye to your exploitation of stuff in the normal range of exploitation, and you'll do the same for me, good fellow..?'

weird isn't it? :)

I just thought, some of the agreements that go on in society are like:
'I'll turn a blind eye to your exploitation of stuff in the normal range of exploitation, and I'll do the same for you' — wax

I tend to think that’s how things are going now. Until someone treads on someone’s toes, then the unspoken agreement is under pressure. For instance, countries ignore human rights issues in countries because it suits them, this tacit agreement lasts until interests put pressure on the agreement. Which suggests a pretty cynical view on agreement. But is that what agreement is in essence?

maybe Jesus should have said, or maybe he did say: 'He who can promise not to commit a sin in the future, cast the first stone'.....

The children. You are very right they are very quick to see the need for agreement and they understand the enormity of it. They also verbalize it very quickly. Then it becomes the basis of friendship or enemy. I find it a major problem that we can not verbalize it to our children quickly. Instead we take a defensive stance most often. Greed then prevails. And maybe that is the agreement with capitalism.

one thing that just struck me about 'agreements' is that, take the example of formal agreements between two countries. They are written up in some document, and people on both sides sign it.
But what do these agreements really mean?
They are codes of behaviour about how the two countries will interact, but these codes are written in words, and word and sentences are always open to interpretation, ie subjective. So there is plenty of room within formal agreements, and so informal ones too, as how two entities can act and still adhere to those agreements.
Then I suppose you bring in 'good faith' which would be about trying to stick to the agreements in spirit as well as letter...

What is the Human Agreement? Is there one? Do we agree to get along? — tomdollar

With or without written or tacit agreement I think we agree day to day to get along. The slightest perceived threat and the agreement becomes shaky. After all, why do we need agreement unless there were these perceived differences in the first place. All agreements are perceived by each individual as serving their interests, maybe it’s protection, gain or some sort of freedom, whatever it’s for it’s a trade.

But what if you have nothing to trade?

nothing you can sell, and no way to attain any way to pay?
Then I guess someone has to fall back on people's philosophy of charity..or something like that.

There is an agreement basically that we are going to fight for survival. It is respectful to fight for your family. So there must be a point were one is comfortable enough to have compassion for others. And that line is different for some. Comfortable compassion may be billions of dollars for some.

Comfortable compassion may be billions of dollars for some. — tomdollar

I think for someone who bases their comfort/safety on large amounts of money, will never have enough to feel secure. You can have x amount of money one day, and you can lose x amount of money the next day, quite easily for a number of reasons. If society broke down x amount of money would be worthless..I think some rich people must worry about money all the time.

Billions of dollars is just an exaggerated illustration. For some it may be I have had enough bread tonight I will give the rest to who needs it. Capitalism allows for the highest levels of comfortable compassion which provides and excuse to redefine the agreement.

Is agreement for the benefit of the weak or the strong? An agreement gives security to the weak and advantages to the strong. Though that’s not the only form of agreement.

I have come upon a quandary tonight, and I'd like to talk it out logically with those who are interested. So I'll jump in now - humans are animals, I think we are the most intelligent or able body amongst the species, but I also think we are the most self conscious. So in a moralistic society created by human ethics, which develop taboos over societal actions, relationships, and thoughts - what is nature, what is truthfully free, is there anything forbidden, or are these constraints all constructs of or humanity, a superior platform of existence that has interwoven morality into existence, tossing aside the most primal hedonistic natures

One might say that we are hyper-cultural animals. It's not just that some things are forbidden while others are encourage.

Our very ability to think (even as anguished individuals) depends on us having 'absorbed' a supremely sophisticated system of communicative conventions (along with various bodily conventions including skills with tools, how close to stand to others, and so on).

...all constructs of our humanity, a superior platform of existence that has interwoven morality into existence, tossing aside the most primal hedonistic natures... — Roberto

If I read you correctly, this 'superior platform of existence' is what I mean by culture. The last phrase reminds me of Freud's vision of civilization and its (necessary) discontents.

If society is the 'redeemed form of man,' then we society types still suffer and delight in some nasty dreams, brought to you by the 'it' (the old Adam.)