The ethics of Hercules

Lexicographers are wont to state that “wrong” is the opposite of “right” in all of its principle senses, but as can be seen at a glance from the appended array,[18] this statement cannot be taken to imply that any such extensive list of significations as we exhibited in our analysis of “right” can be reproduced here. Indeed, in what respect “wrong” is the antonym of “right,” or, in other words, how far this pair of terms illustrates the law of reciprocal innervation, can be seen only from a detailed comparison of the two, as follows:—

This comparison obviously reveals no basis for the statement that “wrong” and “right” are complete antitheses to each other, at least in the fine sense that up is the opposite of down, in of out, or east of west. So that, if we accept the word “right” as descriptive of a behavior situation in which the dominant feature is the controlling and directing of human energies, the employment of technique to further man’s purposes, or the attainment of any “good” whatsoever, the word “wrong” cannot,—either according to the detailed list of its uses just presented, or according to the above scheme of its logical relationship to “right,”—be said to be the true antonym of that word. The law of reciprocal innervation does not, in its integrity, apply here.

How then shall we explain the fact that people so habitually say and feel that “wrong” is the opposite of “right,” if it cannot be admitted that antagonistic muscles are always employed in the thoughts and the acts to which these two words refer? Perhaps the following interpretation will answer. Logicians are accustomed to say that any universal proposition, any sweeping statement, such as, “Every swan is white,” or “No aliens need apply,” is contradicted by the admission that one single exception is to be allowed. But obviously, such logical contradiction, such admission of a lone but effective exception, is not equivalent to granting that “No swans are white,” or that “Every alien is requested to apply.” Nevertheless, the tradition among logicians is that with the granting of one such exception, the sweeping statement originally made is held to be untrue, and hence, false. In physiological terms (than which there are none more fundamental), contradiction is for the logician equivalent to a partial but effective inhibition of any fully developed action-tendency. When Plato would say, “You may all now come in to dinner,” but is deterred by seeing Diogenes muddying his feet in order to tread the more scornfully on the clean banquet floor, Plato’s action-pattern of wholesale, cordial invitation is suddenly interrupted. And, so far as Plato’s emotions are concerned, the need to make one important exception in his invitation, is very much like having to turn the whole company out of doors. This tendency for an emotional repugnance to blot out all sense of proportion is clearly illustrated in certain oft-repeated fables. The story of the involuntary guest who had not on a wedding garment, of the ninety and nine sheep, and of the rich young man are cases in point. Similar examples may be found in the behavior of any household. The vexed hostess is heard complaining that one little faux pas on the part of her serving-girl “completely spoiled the whole evening.” The sweet young thing whose lover arrives a quarter of an hour later than his appointment accuses him of being elsewhere enamoured to stay. The wife whose husband forgets only one of her twenty birthdays since their marriage often finds it impossible to overlook the single, unhabitual fault. It is not that such people crave or dote on perfection; they do nothing of the sort: it is only that their behavior mechanisms are unable to readjust quickly to another stimulus than the one which they have expected, and this failure to readjust releases energies by way of the viscera instead of along other and more pacific pathways.

All this has an important bearing on the meaning of the word “wrong.” We saw that this word has only 18 significations, as compared with the 114 significations of “right.” We also saw that it is only partially antagonistic to the concept to which it is commonly opposed. And it has further been revealed that our customary logic makes a single exception the grounds for an assumption of contradiction. On the basis of these observations, then, we may declare that “wrong” refers to some very special behavior situations where human energies cannot be controlled and directed as desired, where the employment of technique to further man’s purposes has been hindered, and where “good” cannot be obtained. This, however, is not equivalent to saying that “wrong” is the antonym, the unqualified contradictory, of “right,” any more than red is the opposite of blue, or coffee the opposite of tea.

A Physiological Warrant for Ethical Optimism

A question of considerable importance both in physiology and in ethics arises when we ask why the concepts “right” and “good” have so many more significations than do “wrong,” “evil,” and “bad.” We have already emphasized the relation between speech and conduct sufficiently to indicate that upon the answer to such a question something essential for a technique in ethics depends. A word can have a great number of significations only by its being employed in a great variety of situations, and this means that very many different specific responses are implicit in the use of our most comprehensive concepts. Contrariwise, with a word of fewer significations, fewer such responses are implied. Now we have already cited the fact that “good” and “right” refer primarily to outgoing (extensor) reactions, and that “wrong,” “evil,” and “bad” signify withdrawing (flexor) reactions. Are we, then, summarily to conclude, without any further knowledge of the body’s mechanisms, that since we seem to use our extensor system in a more diversified manner than our flexor system, the muscular equipment of the former is superior to that of the latter?

If we do so conclude, we shall be in error. It is the opposite that is nearer the truth. Both larger and stronger, and, on the whole, more easily educated muscles exist in the flexor than in the extensor system. The innumerable capacities of the half-closed hand are representative of this superiority. Still more important, however, is the fact that the flexor system is practically the dominant system in the human body. The hinges of the knee, hip, shoulder, elbow, wrist, and jaw are more often, more strongly, and more readily closed maximally than they are expanded to the full. Besides, occupational postures are almost universally crystallized withdrawing responses. Where, then, shall we look for the answer to our question?

We shall look directly at the behavior of the organism as a whole. While it is admitted that flexor actions are stronger, more numerous, and more universal than are extensor reactions, yet when we consider how the flexor reactions dispose the body toward its environment, we shall at once have light on this curious problem. For the effect of such reactions is to cut off the body from a large part of the environment, and consequently to reduce the possibility of effective contact with it. Stooping, crouching, bowing the head, and lowering the eye are significant examples of flexor responses which reduce the span of perception, while every man knows that activities of the opposite character allow a greater number of stimuli to come in contact with his eyes and his ears. Consequently, even though flexor actions will always be in the majority, extensor actions have the advantage of providing the conditions under which a greater variety of stimuli can be presented to the organism. This is the same as saying that the open-minded person necessarily becomes discriminative and exploratory, while the opposite type is left to stew in his own juice. The flexor type of man is, indeed, in the end reduced to contacts with his own body, while to the extensor type of man his body is only one of the many sources of motivation, the rest being in the external environment. It seems thus to be primarily due to the very mechanics of the organism that the words “right” and “good” have a greater variety of significations than have the words “bad,” “evil,” and “wrong.”

One additional word, however, can still be said. As we have already indicated, these three so-called negative ethical concepts are all descriptive of behavior situations in which thwarting and inhibition are dominant symptoms. Henceforth, however, thwarting and inhibition will be understood as temporary interruptions of an outgoing reaction which would have eventuated had the environment contained the stimulus to which the organism was attuned to respond. As we say in common speech, a desire is not satisfied by being denied, and from our every-day experience we know that great aggravations produce as much scheming as do our easiest successes. He who casts his eye over the numerous significations of our two positive ethical concepts will now realize where much of the adroitness and sagacity which characterizes them originates.

In these two simple facts, namely, that extensor actions bring more of the world of action within our range, and that even the thwarted man imaginatively explores the environment to find substitute stimuli to release his energy upon, we find the reason why man has more uses for the words “right” and “good” than he has for the words “bad,” “evil,” and “wrong.” And with this we achieve by a purely empirical and anti-supernaturalistic method a physiological warrant for ethical optimism. If anyone is looking for a “higher” truth, let him ponder this one.