When you say good and evil, do you refer to a metaphysical concept of good and evil, i.e. things being objectively good or bad, or do you mean what we believe to be good or evil?

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

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.

To respond to the title, probably enough people asking if I strike you and you feel pain, and you would ask me or perhaps act in order for me to stop, why you think it would be okay to do it to someone else.

To the post, unless you live in Antarctica somehow or perhaps some isolated African jungle, it's called law and order and government. Already done lol.

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?

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.

Not at all. I'm saying we don't have to because it's already been done. Is it perfect? Not by far. Is it better than earlier systems factoring in the whole overpopulation thing? Absolutely and indisputably. It has mechanisms to correct itself when corruption rots and corrodes inner workings. Some of these are external of course.

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.

Technically, good is superior to evil; quoting myself: 'if there is a greater evil, that is good in it's ill-doings.' Good succeeds in objectives, whereas evil fails; good is smart, whereas evil is stupid.

If the objective is to produce something, it's either evil to produce nothing, or the objective itself is evil (producing would be counter-productive in the good-owed, greater scheme). If there is nothing, the only step forward is good, as evil would fail at stepping forward.

Good and evil are opposites that revolve around objectives, but can be thought in a subjective sense, using the terms are good and bad, where most associations are quality-determinate (i.e. this game is good; this game is bad).

Sounds satisfying.

But such narratives in the support of any local belief system around "good and evil" are susceptible to ironic and corrupt uses (ie. a means to many kinds of ends depending on who stands to gain) within the hierarchy of said culture. Wolves can be clothed in sheep skin, so to speak.

The narrative of good and evil lends power to the righteous in proportion to the degree everyone believes in and abides by it (or so pretends). It's as much a propaganda tool for monarchs as it is a means of keeping social order.

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