Right and Wrong: Where Do You Draw the Starting Line?

By Jeremy Sherman
How old is the difference between right and wrong? Some think it dates back to the origins of the universe. Some believe that God, the prime mover, knew right from wrong and designed everything to play out the appropriate balance between the two. Others think right and wrong are as old as God but not both of his making. For them, the universe had at its origin two independent forces-good and evil-which are still battling it out.

Science offers reasons to doubt that right and wrong are as old as God or the universe. As scientific evidence mounts it seems that if God exists, either he doesn't have an opinion what we should do or we haven't got a clue what he would consider right and wrong. Existentialists call science's perspective the "view from nowhere." From its neutral viewpoint there is no true right and wrong. You must do without guidance from some master authority who knows what you should do. According to some subscribers to science, the difference between right and wrong originates with humans. We alone seem to impose such judgments. The rest of the universe doesn't care.

Some go further, arguing that if only humans fuss over right and wrong maybe they are just illusions. There's no right or wrong. There's just what people want-and people want different things. What they want they call right and what they don't want they call wrong, but that's just for leverage in getting what they want. We alone fail to see that in the grand scheme of things, it's all good.

Arguments that it's all good come and go in the cultural mix, though they never go away anymore, nor do they ever gain much solid ground. Right and wrong don't go away. Even those who claim it's all good or all illusion can't help but employ the concepts of right and wrong in their very argument, which could be paraphrased as "It's wrong to believe that right and wrong are real."

If right and wrong are inescapable for us, then maybe they are real but do originate with us. They're not real in some universal sense, but they're apparently real in that they affect behavior. Of all the things you could do, you do only some things. Your actions are constrained by your sense of right and wrong.

Notice that I've just distinguished two kinds of right and wrong. One would make the difference between right and wrong as real as a law of physics. Timeless and imposed upon everything, a judging God or a universal battle between good and evil would be like the law of gravity or the second law of thermodynamics.

The other kind of right and wrong is real in a more modest sense. Right and wrong are whatever dos and don'ts have accumulated in you that shape and constrain your behavior. Even if right and wrong of the first kind don't exist, right and wrong of the second kind clearly do, at least in humans.

At least in humans... how about anybody else? Do animals have dos and don'ts? Do plants? Bacteria?

These other organisms don't have declared dos and don'ts. We don't see bears, flies, tulips, or E. coli stating their moral convictions and then acting on them.

Still, living creatures don't just do anything. They mostly do what fits their environment or else they wouldn't have survived. In the second, strictly practical sense of right and wrong, behaviors that enable an organism or a lineage to survive are right and behaviors that don't are wrong-not right and wrong for the universe but right or wrong for the individual organism or its lineage.

So right and wrong originate with life-with any entity whose actions make a difference to its persistence. If a squirrel runs out into traffic and dies we can say that was a "don't." It was wrong for the squirrel to do that.

Can we extend this reasoning beyond living things? Intense pressure can crush a rock, ending its persistence. We could say that intense pressure is wrong for the rock, or going further that it was wrong for the rock to put up with the pressure. That doesn't feel quite the same as saying it was wrong for the squirrel to run out into traffic. But why? Because a squirrel feels the consequence and a rock doesn't? A plant doesn't feel the consequences any more than a rock and yet we can talk about a plant flowering too early as being wrong more readily than we can talk about a rock's action being wrong.

Because a squirrel running into traffic is active in a way that rocks aren't? We would say it was wrong for the squirrel to stand still in the middle of traffic, or a plant to not flower later, so that's not the difference either. Maybe it's that the squirrel has a choice about whether to enter traffic and the rock has no choice whether to withstand pressure. But does the squirrel have a choice? Does a plant have a choice about when it flowers?

If this is feeling too philosophical, you have a choice to stop reading, of course. But that would be wrong because I'm about to get to the point.

Of course we could define right and wrong any way we want, even so rocks fall under the pressure of our judgment or the universe has some grand sense of right or wrong. Still, some definitions are better fits than others. So here's one to consider:

Right and wrong originate with life and evolution. Before evolution, things either survive or don't-but their behavior does not seem to be for anything like their survival. Rocks don't behave the way they do for their own good or for the good of their family tree. They don't have a family tree in the same sense that living things do. Evolution is only possible in things that have family trees, that is, lineages for which their survival makes a difference.

With evolution and life behavior becomes for survival-and not just survival of the individual but of its lineage, a lineage of things that accumulate fittedness (right moves) over generations through the evolutionary process. Evolution is the origin of fit, but also unfit, the place where right and wrong begin to get locally and practically defined.

Is there a right and wrong for evolution? Does evolution work for its own persistence? Some think it does, but the evidence suggests it doesn't. Evolution isn't a thing or even a campaign; it's a name we've given to a process of elimination, or more accurately a process whereby the universe's age-old tendency toward elimination eats away at life's lineages. The lineages have right and wrong but the process of elimination is just the natural tendency for things to degrade.

With life it's no longer just the view from nowhere. It's the view from somewhere-or, more to the point, from someone and some family line for whom consequences matter.

I'm an out- of-the-closet theorist in anti-theory society. I'm an evolutionary epistemologist, meaning a researcher and teacher focused on the ways we all generalize, drawing conclusions from inconclusive data, shopping among interpretations of evidence, theorizing and employing abstractions whether we know it or not. I look at how we do this stuff and how we could do it better.

I have worked in businesses, non-profits and academics. My Ph.D. is in Evolutionary Epistemology and I also have a Masters in public policy. I've written several e-books including "Negotiate With Yourself and Win! Doubt Management for People who can hear themselves think," and "Executive UFO: A Field Guide to Unidentified Flying Objectives in the Workplace." I have taught college-level psychology, sociology, Western History, theology, philosophy and English. I'm currently a research collaborator with Berkeley professor Terrence Deacon in what's called Emergence theory: How life emerges from non-life and how things change when it does.

Spiritually, I'm a Taowinist, a cross between Tao and Darwin, meaning I think of life as a difficult open-ended tension between holding on and letting go. The path to living well isn't through finding something eternal to hold on to or letting go of everything as some spiritualists suggest, but in managing and appreciating the tension, especially through the arts and sciences. Philosophically and interpersonally, I'm an Ambigamist: Deeply romantic and deeply skeptical.

I'm working on a few new books: "Doubt: A User's Guide," "Purpose: A Natural History," "The Problem with People: Steps Toward An Objective Definition of Butthead (not just anyone with whom you butt heads)" and "Zoom Meditations: The Art of Multi-Level-Headedness."

I play jazz bass and sing. My big persistent drivers seem to be competition for status, bottomless introspection, assiduous intellectual inquiry, real social change and good company. I love good company.

READ MORE - Right and Wrong: Where Do You Draw the Starting Line?

Do You Avoid People? Go From "Fearful" to "Formidable" in Just Days!

By Mike Shery
Two types of people are very frustrating and puzzling to their significant others, those with Avoidant Personalities and those with Schizoid personalities.

Avoidant Personality

Those who suffer from the Avoidant Personality Disorder feel insecure, impotent, helpless, and deficient in self-esteem. As a result, they are withdrawn and socially detached or distant.

They are very self-conscious about their perceived shortcomings and are hypersensitive and hypervigilant for signs of rejection or disapproval. In extreme cases, even the slightest, most benign and well intentioned criticism or disagreement can be perceived as embarrassing, abusive or rejecting.

Therefore, in order to avoid such perceived rejection, the Avoidant personality tries, as much as possible, to avoid social and other situations that require close contact with others. That would include any number of situations that are part and parcel of everyday life, such as attending weddings, inviting people to dinner or other social events or attending college classes or seminars, to name just a few.

Not surprisingly, Avoidant types find it almost impossible to engage in intimate relationships. They often test the possibility of a relationship by tip-toeing into it and scrupulously assessing whether the other person will accept them close to, or totally unconditionally.

They desperately require ongoing reassurance to enable them to feel attractive, validated, significant etc. People often view those with Avoidant personalities as shy, timid, withdrawn, quiet, tentative, distant, tense, insecure, inhibited and sometimes, even "stuck-up" because of the interactive "distance" they maintain.

Avoidant types typically have vigilant interactive styles and are very careful and self-protective when with others, causing others to have troubling doubts about them! They believe, in the background, if not in the forefront of their minds, not only that they are socially and interpersonally incompetent, but that others simply do not like them.

They entertain these assumptions so strongly that they may construe a genuinely positive message from someone as negative in some way. For instance, they may view an honest offer of help conveyed by someone as just a form of deception or manipulation.

When in the presence of others, Avoidant types are generally withdrawn and very tentative. When unavoidably involved socially, they communicate an empty-sounding humility and and a very "under-stated" persona.

To the Avoidant, this strategy makes the occurrence of criticism or disagreement from others less likely.

Schizoid personalities.

Schizoid types are similar to Avoidants in interpersonal distancing, but for a different reason. The reason relates to the their experience of pleasure, reward and satisfaction.

You see they have none; they have a very difficult time feeling good or pleasure about much of anything. Enjoyment or real satisfaction is hardly ever seen on their faces.

The term for the inability to experience pleasure is "anhedonia." Those who know schizoid people see them as distant, disinterested, unengaged and "just going through the motions."

Sounds like depression or Avoidant personality, doesn't it, but it is not. Schizoid types appear merely indifferent and totally uncaring regarding the impact of social interaction, engagement and relationships.

They have a very restricted range of emotions, rarely express any feelings and are simply unable to feel "intimacy" with anyone. Because of this, the schizoid's significant other, if he has one, often feels lonely and "empty."

They are even indifferent to sex, rarely showing any interest. This causes more problems for any significant others because they do not feel valued or attractive.

It is a very emotionally impoverished personality type; they create the impression of being distant, indifferent, flat, uncaring and emotionally stunted. Close family or social groups give them no feelings of intimacy, closeness or satisfaction.

They would rather do things by themselves and are very solitary in their lifestyle. Vocationally, they tend to work in occupations that are cut-and-dried. You know what they say about accountants and engineers!

They are relatively rigid and lack cognitive flexibility in the way they deal with issues. Faced with changes that require this flexibility, their coping skills may manifest signs of deterioration and they may act-out.

They portray the impression of not caring what others think and they appear to adhere to mindless routine. They do not respond effectively to social stimuli, social triggers or interactions. They are not "deep" and often have little, of any consequence, to say.

What about Professional Help?

Professional help usually involves:

1. Individual counseling or psychotherapy. The purpose of counseling is to understand yourself and your situation clearer.

You get objective feedback, support and guidance from a professional with experience in treating abuse in relationships.

2. Group therapy. Attending therapy in a group setting desensitizes you to your anxiety and teaches you how to communicate better in an environment which is, itself, social.

You get objective feedback, support and guidance, not only from a professional, but from your peers experiencing similar problems as you. Money should not deter you because both types of counseling can be received from private practitioners and non-profit sliding scale community agencies.

3. Cognitive therapy-oriented self-therapy kits (STKs) and articles and books.

If going to counseling seems initially like too big a step, reading articles and books, attending seminars and using cognitive therapy-oriented self-therapy or home therapy kits (STKs) can help. STKs are self-help programs that use cognitive therapy to tutor you, step-by-step on how to deal with your social engagement anxiety.

As opposed to books and articles, they teach assertive social skills using cognitive therapy in a multimedia format: CDs, DVDs, MP3s, e-books, workbooks, audios, videos etc. Cognitive-behavioral tutoring on how to become engaged in relationships can be very helpful.

Dr Shery earned his doctorate at the Univ. of Southern Calif.He is a counselor in Cary, IL with 30 years experience. He provides multimedia self-help programs which help his patients to happily engage and relate to others. They have helped thousands of people and are guaranteed to

READ MORE - Do You Avoid People? Go From "Fearful" to "Formidable" in Just Days!