[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

Actually, no. If anything, historical and evolutionary (biological, not social) factors tend to favor "kill or be killed", cheat on spouse because it increases the odds of spreading your genes (as well as spreading STDs), and that those who amass wealth and power tend to live longer than those who don't. The "thou shalt not kill" is a relatively modern concept to try to tame otherwise inherently violent humanity. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife has roots in "if you do you'll piss off her husband and he shall kill you" and "if you screw her you'll catch whatever she has or give her whatever creeping crud you have".

What many religions preach against is what's inherently bad about human nature. The aversion you speak of is society's attempt to curb such nature. It is my view that in the absence of religion, we'd either make up the same rules anyway, or we'd invent a religion so that those in charge of said religion imposed such rules on everyone else by force (as has been done historically, and continues to be done in parts of the world).

I think certain aspects could be the result of evolution. For instance, a small tribe/group where murder was rampant would not survive very long. While selfishness benefits an individual in the short term, in the long run groups with more cooperation would have worked better. Of course, you could argue it was a form of 'society' at work at that point too.