ambivalence

Our universal sense of rights and wrongs are innate on the very fundamental level, but society and upbringing solidify them in our minds as we mature, creating beliefs and assumptions that dictate our lives. On the most elementary level, we share common doctrines such as “taking away another’s life and stealing another’s property” are wrong. For most of us, committing these deeds will weigh heavily on our conscience. However, beyond the boundaries of such indisputable rules lies an array of unique beliefs and conflicting ideas.

I am lost in this vast and stormy ocean of irreconcilable differences, at times struggling to come to terms with what I encounter. In my attempts to accommodate and hold my grounds, I have come to believe that there are no right or wrong methods but courses of action that keep the most number of people involved happy. As much as I dislike the idea of imposing an idea on others, people are most often unyielding, because that is the only way they can obtain what they want in a world governed by individualism. The question is how much value do we see in “others above self” as opposed to “self above others”. Sometimes, adhering to the silver rule alone does not suffice when making certain decisions, since what may appear right to me may instead be unacceptable to you.

We are constantly pursuing happiness, an elusive destination at which we can never really arrive if we don’t know how to appreciate ourselves. Many believe that we either choose to be happy or not, and that we are a sole determinant of our own happiness. A study published by Psychological Science suggested that happiness not only coexist with personality, but that innate personality traits cause happiness. Another study in Social Science & Medicine shows that the happiness follows a curve, in which it trends downwards with age and upwards again among the older age group. And contrary to popular belief, the curve is not affected by income, education, or marital status.

On another note, boosting a poor country’s living condition would really help its people achieve a certain level of happiness. And in richer countries, perhaps happiness can be attained through a more balanced work and home life.

Sometimes perceiving the fine line between right and wrong is simply stemmed from what we believe or what social norms have made us believe. In Moral Minds, Hauser raised an interesting point.

Norms wouldn’t be norms if we could tamper with them, constantly questioning why they exist and why we have to follow them. Their effectiveness lies in their unconscious operation, and their power to create conformity. On the other hand, although social norms often exert an unconscious hand of control, we do sometimes violate them. When we do, or observe someone else in violation, our brains respond with a cascade of emotions, designed both to register the violation and to redress the imbalance caused.

Every culture offers a distinctive palette unique to its own people, including a few which may seem peculiar to others outside that circle. Norms serve as a safety net on which we can fall back and introduce order in an otherwise chaotic world, allowing our interactions to be sufficiently predictable as a result. However, it inevitably causes distress when one faces a situation that challenges these norms. Such circumstances are bound to arise and we find ourselves questioning what is really best for us, proceeding with what we think is right because occasionally the limits of norms may be put to a test.

Wired, Issue 16.02

Morality, spirituality, the meaning of life — science doesn’t handle those issues well at all. But that’s cool. We have art and religion for that stuff. Science also assumes predictable cause and effect in a world that’s a chaotic, bubbling stew of randomness. But that’s OK, too. Our approximations are usually good enough. No, the real reason science sucks is that it makes us look bad. It makes us bit players in the Big Story of the universe, and it exposes some key limitations of the human brain.
Look at it this way: Before science, we humans had dominion over Earth, the center of the universe. Now we’re just a bunch of hairless apes on a wet rock orbiting a minor star in a marginal galaxy.
Even worse, those same cortexes that invented science can’t really embrace it. Science describes the world with numbers (ratio of circumference to diameter: pi) and abstractions (particles! waves! particles!). But our intractable brains evolved on a diet of campfire tales. Fantastical explanations (angry gods hurling lightning bolts) and rare events with dramatic outcomes (saber-toothed tiger attacks) make more of an impact on us than statistical norms. Evolution gave us brains that crave certainty, with irrational fears of crashing in an airplane and a built-in weakness for just-so stories about intelligent design. Meanwhile, the true wonders revealed by the scientific method — species that change into new species over time, continents that float around the planet, a quantum-mechanical world where nothing is for sure — are worse than counterintuitive. To a depressingly large number of us, they’re downright threatening.
In other words, thanks to evolution, half of all Americans don’t believe in evolution. That’s the universe for you: impersonal, uncaring, and ironic.

I swear by the silver rule — Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you — or at least I hope I have lived up to it. Ten years ago, a friend wrote me a poem which has been embedded in me ever since — The world is like a mirror, reflecting what you do, good to the others, the same they do to you — but life has taught me that it doesn’t pay to be too nice all the time. And you get taken advantage of now and then. I had a doormat personality right until a few years ago until I met someone who changed me. When I look back I can’t help wondering if being nice was just a facade to please everybody around me, and whether beneath the surface I actually had a mean streak. Eventually, one realizes that it’s impossible to please everyone. But it’s not as if I was trying hard to be nice, i just felt uneasy if I didn’t comply with another’s wish, to the extent that I would brood over it for many hours to come. A few people have told me that nice people don’t usually get any higher on the corporate ladder, and one cannot afford to be soft and obliging all the time. Even if you feel awkward about turning down a friend’s request sometimes, you have to say “no” if you truly cannot fulfill the request.

I’d like to think that pure altruism still exists but it is increasingly difficult to give selflessly without expecting a return or gaining a sense of satisfaction from a deed. The undeniable truth is that as humans we feel good when we give. Whatever the case is, I still advocate the silver rule over other rules such as the ever popular brass rule which translates to a tooth for a tooth.