Knowing Right From Wrong

In a courtroom, lawyers sometimes explore whether the defendant knows right from wrong. Is the defendant old enough, mature enough, mentally capable to judge right from wrong? Our Covenant Group has discussed this, too. If we are old enough, mature enough, mentally capable, how do we decide what is right? Let me start today with some foundation and I'll build from there.

I read or heard (and if I find out where, I'll share), that humans may make this important decision using one of three approaches. You may be:

• Rule based. You have a set of rules (example, The Ten Commandments) and the rules are all important. You follow the rules to the letter.
• Rule based with provisos. You have a set of rules, or standards clearly stated, but you apply those rules based on the circumstances. You weigh the standard against the situation, possible outcomes and internal judgments.
• Value based. You hold a value as your standard (examples, Love Your Neighbor, or Justice). All decisions are based on what the value is and how you interpret right behavior considering that value.

You actually may use a mixture of these approaches. I use the second and third approaches, I think. I'm always considering the situation, the people involved, the possible outcomes before I determine what might be the right course of action. The values I hold give me a larger framework to make decisions that will come more from the gut or heart than from my thinking brain.

This author also said (and now I'm thinking this had to be a sermon, but maybe not. Now I'm so deep in, the reference librarian in me has kicked in and I'll have to find out. But we digress...)

This author also said that humans use five factors to decide what will be the right course of action.

1. Harm. Who will be harmed? Will any harm come from my action--to people, to the environment, etc.?
2. Fairness. Will my action have a sense of fair play to it? Will my action bring an outcome that equally apportions benefits (or harm) to the situation?
3. In-Group. Does my decision support my membership in a group with which I identify (family, religion, club)? Do I decide based on the morals and traditions of that group?
4. Hierarchy. Is there an authority or power figure to whom I turn when deciding the rightness of a decision?
5. Purity. Is your decision based on a sense of divine involvement, a holiness of purpose, or divine inspiration?

The observation was made that Unitarian Universalists tend use factors 1 and 2 for judging right from wrong; members of more conservative religions will more likely weigh the last three more heavily in their decisions. But any of the five may be invoked to judge what is "right", and again, we may use a mixture of any of the five to help.

This "factor-scenario" makes a whole lot of sense in considering why we humans have such a tough time agreeing on the right course of action. If I believe God is on my side and you're trying to be fair, there may be light-years between us in motivation and in our abilities to compromise. And as Shelby Foote observed during Ken Burns' series The Civil War, the American War Between the States occurred because we Americans could not come to a compromise.

I know I don't have the answer to the thorny human problem of conflict. But the three approaches and the five factors (very Buddhist) at least shed light on the deep issues that might be working within and among people, countries and governments to throw the Life System off balance.

How do you decide right from wrong? That person in your life with whom you're always at odds. How do they decide, do you think? Does knowing where they're coming from help? Can you work with that knowledge to get some productive communication going? Or are some points of departure in deciding right from wrong too separated to ever find common ground?