There is no right and wrong - only principles and consequences

Alexis wakes up next to his beautiful wife Diana whom he adores. He gets up and gets coffee and breakfast going. His wife is 9 months pregnant, and it's up to Alexis to do most of the chores in the house. He doesn't mind since he loves his wife very much and would do anything to make sure she is safe, and that all her needs are satisfied.

Alexis is a stand up citizen and always follows the rules and regulations, whether it's on the road, at work or when paying his taxes. He's a good example for us all. But this is the morning life as he knows it will change.

After finishing the coffee and breakfast, and putting it onto an orderly stacked tray, he brings it to his wife that's still in bed. He tries to wake her up, but she is in a deep sleep. She is a deep sleeper, so he tries again, but with no avail. He lifts the blankets off of her and sees the white linen covered in blood. He tries to wake her up a second time and still nothing. He starts panicking, his pulse racing, his heart starts pounding and want's to come out of his chest. He franticly tries to wake her up again. But still...nothing.

Diana experienced a very rare complication called a haemorrhage. Unstoppable bleeding caused by a rupture in the womb. After losing so much blood she's lost conciousness.

Alexis knows he needs to get very urgent medical attention to Diana. Not wanting to wait for an ambulance in this third world country, he decides to take her to the hospital himself since they are just a couple of blocks away. He picks her up and dumps her in the back seat of his car and races off to the hospital. He decides to bypass the majority of the road rules so that he can save his wife's life, he will simply pay the traffic fines later. Traffic fines seem so insignificant at this moment. He skips traffic lights and races through stop streets, making dangerous manoeuvres as he bypasses cars. When approaching a red traffic light he would scan the crossing street up and down and then jump through it if the coast is clear. He is advancing to the hospital quickly and on the way to save his wife's life.

3 blocks away from the hospital, almost there, he looks back to his wife in the back seat, checking if she is OK. He turns back to face the street, a 9 year old girl named Cindy crosses the road on her bike, she's late for school and also in a rush. Alexis has been checking for cars before skipping the traffic lights, not thinking of pedestrians and cyclists. He attempts to get the car to a halt in the short space between him and the girl. But he was going too fast. Tires screeching and the shrill of a child's voice screaming. He makes contact with the girl on her bike. She flip flops over the bonnet of his car and hits the windscreen head first. Cracking it in all directions, creating a floating red stain that runs down the cracks and starts to gather on top of his wind shield wipers.

Two hours later the 9 year old girl Cindy was declared dead. Alexis, our stand up citizen, has just committed manslaughter. He deliberately broke the road rules and killed a child as a result. And he has to live with the memory of this day for the rest of his life.

But was he wrong? Did he do the right thing? What should he have done? If he had called an ambulance, would he have been able to save his wife's life? He simply followed what was natural, his instincts, his primal needs. If someone you loved are hurt or in trouble, would you not do anything in your power to protect them or get them help? These are just one of many complicated cases that lawyers and judges face every day. But that also raises much bigger questions, like: Why do we have these rules? Who created these rules? Who gave them the right to create these rules? How many rules are needed until our primal instincts are completely overwritten? How important is our primal instincts to our level of happiness?

If a Lion in the jungle kills his own male offspring so that they won't compete with him when they grow up, we consider it the course of nature and just let it be. But a father killing his own child we call a criminal and put him in jail.

If an animal is sick and the cost of recovery is too high, we put the animal out, and send it into the afterlife. But when a person is sick we will do whatever possible to save their life. Ending a human life to save costs it never an option.

A male deer mates with multiple female partners as we call him the strongest of the heard. But a man sleeps with another woman and we brand him a cheater.

One male wolf kills the alpha male wolf of a pack and take over the pack as his own, we refer to him as the alpha male and respect his position in the pack. But one nation takes over the land and people of another nation and we call them terrorists.

These are just some of the differences between animals and humans, and the rules that were created by humans for humans. But at the end of the day we are just as much animal as the rest of the animal species. The only thing separating us from the rest of the animals is our intellect. And our intellect is the thing responsible for all these rules.

Please note, I don't condone the breaking of rules that are vital to our society. I'm simply exploring the basis of what is truly right and what is truly wrong.

Roughly two years before writing this I was banished and disowned by my parents - and still am - for not choosing their faith. Thus I am not allowed to make any form of contact with them. Their reason for doing so is because their faith has a rule that states that all contact with people that denounces the faith be cut.

My parents followed the rule, and disowned me as a result. But was it wrong of me to choose to not be in the faith? Do I not have free will? If religion controls your life with rules to such a degree that you have no freedom or free will, is life worth living at all? Why do animals not have religion? If your current life is bombarded with rules as a test to see if you qualify for the next life, whether it be in heaven or on earth, does that not give you an indication of what your free will be in the next life? Maybe your life in total would be worth more if you denounce your faith, and get as much as possible out of this life, giving some meaning and joy out of your life, even though you might not attain the next life.

Once again I am not advising that anyone denounce their faith. I am simply encouraging a deeper level of thinking, and trying to understand the true meaning of right and wrong. Especially since no religion has 100% backed up proof that it is the right religion. Because if you delve deeper into any form of religion, there is always a spot where a little hocus pocus is required that serves as a cornerstone of their belief system.

So once again, I ask the question, what is right and wrong? Where does it come from? The only answer that I have come up with thus far is.....nowhere. Which means that there is no basis of what is truly right and what is truly wrong. It's all formulated and constructed by humans. And it's constructed to make things work. Our lives are one big system, the system of families, the system of businesses, the system of our social lives, the monetary system, the system of governments. All these systems will only work if there are rules, because each one of us is a component - like a mechanical part from a car - we are a component in each of these systems. And if a mechanical part in a car does not function as it should, most often the vehicle as a whole will stop functioning. Or a feature of the vehicle will stop functioning. So if we break the rules, then we become that component that stops functioning, and everyone and everything around us is affected.

Another way to look at rules is by comparing it to software programming, writing code to make a program work the way it should. If the computer simply decides not to execute certain lines of code, usually the program as a whole is affected, and an error would occur at some point during the programs execution. In exactly the same way rules are vital to the functioning or our society.

But what are behind these rules? If you take the rule: "Do not exceed the specified speed limit" when driving a motor vehicle, the reason this rule is in place is to keep you and other road users safe. If you break this rule you stand a better chance of getting into an accident. So behind this rule is a principle, and the principle is to keep the roads safe for everyone.

But! Say you are driving in the middle of a desert, it's flat, there's no grass, no trees, no stones, just a flat piece of road with no obstacles in sight. There are no other vehicles or pedestrians. If you do break the speed limit, are you still upholding the principle? Yes, you probably are, the only thing that can technically go wrong is if the vehicle has a mechanical failure and causes you to have an accident, but the only person affected by this is yourself. And the accident will probably not cause a lot of damage to you or the car. So the rule does not really apply here. Although if there was a speed trap and you were caught, you would still need to pay a fine.

So even if you uphold the principle, you can still break the rule, and you can still face the consequences. But are the consequences worth it? Maybe they are? I used to live in a small estate where parking was very limited, and the rule was that you are only allowed 2 vehicles in your allocated parking spots, and if you are caught parking your vehicle in a parking spot that was marked "visitors" parking, then you would be liable to a R 100 fine. And they usually would do checks once a week to see where vehicles are parked and check if they are still parked there the next week. I was unfortunate enough to only read this rule after I already moved in, and I had 2 cars and a motorbike. So I had to park it somewhere. After thinking it through I simply parked it in a visitors parking spot. And each week they would issue me a fine of R 100. And this added up to R 400 per month in fines. They never took it any further, they just continued to issue fines, and I just kept paying them. I was fine with the consequences, I just saw it as paying for parking.

So technically that was not wrong! I just accepted the consequences and lived with them. If you follow the blame trail then it would actually be the estate's fault for not building enough parking spots, because parking was a very big issue in the estate in general. So maybe we can say that they - the people the built the estate - were wrong? But how would they have known if parking would be an issue before the estate was built?

So in the end, defining wrong and right is difficult if not impossible, and if there was a "wrong" who would we blame? According to statistics, people that commit murders are more likely to come from broken homes, so is it really their fault for committing the murder? Or should we send their parents to jail for allowing a home to be broken and not fixing it? Maybe the parent's parents were abusive, and the result was that the children from the abused had families that had families of their own, but they didn't have the needed skills to have families, because they were abused while growing up. So they just caused broken homes.

If you ask any psychologist where most people's problems come from, they would answer you that it comes from their childhood. One of their parents, or both of their parents did something wrong when it comes to raising children, either they were absent, or they were extremely strict, or they were abusive, or they were too loving, the list goes on, and the result was that when the child grows up to be an adult he would have a psychological condition. And this condition has a range of symptoms, from commitment issues, to infidelity, to abuse, to murder, to intimacy issues, to crime, and the list goes on. But those issues are at no fault of the person, the original fault lies with their parents. So who is to blame when a crime is committed by this person?

Another interesting thing I read about was that certain psychological conditions encourages risky behaviour, and that risky behaviour leads to people having more sex outside their current committed relationships. And the study goes on to explain that these psychological conditions were formed by evolution to assist in the survival of the species. So in a natural, evolutionary way, cheating and being slightly crazy is actually seen as the right way. But in our current civil system it's seen as wrong and it needs to be fixed.

Did you know that most of the big corporations and people in high power positions are psychopaths? Yip! It's true. They are all broken, wrong, they do not belong in society, but they are running the world. So in a natural and evolutionary way they have a part to play. But according to psychologists they have a problem and need a prescription of pills that they need to take on a daily basis.

So at the end of the day defining exactly what is wrong and what is right is in actual fact not possible. The closest that I have come to formulating some sort of right or wrong concept is trying to look at the system that it falls under. If a certain action jeopardizes the system, then it is usually seen as wrong, and if it assists in the system, it is usually seen as right. If you bully your sibling you are jeopardizing the family system, and that's why it is wrong, or you might create social complications with your sibling that might affect him later in life. If you are committing fraud you are jeopardizing the business and monetary system, and that's why it is seen as wrong. If you are a honest hard working citizen then you are assisting in the business system and making it stronger, and that's why it is seen as right.

Removing right and wrong
If you look at the world with no right and no wrong, and only consider the consequences, you will see a whole new world opening up. Every small decision that you make, even the subconscious ones, they go through your right and wrong evaluation circuits in your brain before a decision is made. And if you focus on this evaluation methodology you will start to see the world in a completely different way. Sometimes you will actually discover new ways of doing things, some might be legal and others might not. So it's a good way to try and find different solutions and think a little outside the box, even though most of the solutions could be illegal, it might open up another channel of thinking that leads to a legal solution.

If you want to think outside the box, you need to remove the box, and the box is the rules that have been drilled into your head for the past couple of decades by everyone around you.

Doing something the right way or the wrong way
Often times someone will tell you that you are doing something wrong, even though you have been doing it that certain way for a long long time, and the quality of the results are sufficient enough. So does that really make it the wrong way to do it? If you can get the result that's needed without following the right way, and without creating negative consequences, is it really wrong?

So next time someone tells you that you are doing something wrong, maybe ask them the questions : Why it's wrong? What are the negative consequences of doing it this way? Maybe you can deal with the consequences. Maybe there is a different way to solve the consequences. Maybe that person will find a new way to do it.

For the next month, try to spot rules, think of how you would have solved a problem if the rules weren't there. Think of how things are done and why people do it that way, maybe there is a wrong way to do it that yields equal results. It will expand your mind and you will truly think outside the box. It might even change your life!

Please note that I am in no way encouraging anyone to break rules. I just want to expand everyone's minds to think outside the box.