

##### The Moral Symmetry of

##### Good and Evil

#####

#####

##### By Ken Levi

##### Copyright 2019 Ken Levi

##### Smashwords Edition

##### Smashwords Edition, License Notes

##### This eBook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This eBook may not be resold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to your favorite book retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

##### Cover Credit

##### Cover Work: http://www.yourebookcover.com

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

MORALITY

Definition _  
_Moral Relativism _  
_Moral Absolutism

1. In Religion  
2. In Philosophy

Rationalization

SYMMETRY

Definition _  
_Symmetry in Physics

1. Physics: The Universe Is Symmetric  
2. Physics: Symmetry Is Fundamental  
3. Physics: Unification  
4. Physics: Why is the Universe Symmetric?  
5. Physics: The Origin of Symmetry  
6. Physics: How Does the Symmetry of the Universe Affect our Lives?

Aesthetic Symmetry

1. Aesthetics: Symmetry in the Arts  
2. Aesthetics: Symmetry in Nature  
3. Aesthetics: Symmetry in Humans

Moral Symmetry

1. Ethics: The Golden Rule  
2. Ethics: The Golden Rule and Empathy  
3. Ethics: Empathy and Intelligence  
4. Ethics: Empathy and Intelligence in Humans and Animals  
5. Ethics: Empathy and the Brain  
6. Ethics: Empathy and the Subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC)  
7. Ethics: Bi-Lateral and Bi-Pedal Symmetry  
8. Ethics: Bi-Lateral Symmetry and Movement  
9. Ethics: Bi-Lateral Symmetry and the Brain  
10. Ethics: Bi-Lateral Symmetry and Physics  
11. Ethics: Bi-Lateral Symmetry and the Golden Rule  
12. Ethics: Moral Symmetry and Social Cooperation  
13. Ethics: Moral Symmetry and Immoral Acts  
14. Ethics: Pain and Suffering

EVIL

Psychopaths

1. Psychopathic Killers  
2. Additional Cases  
3. Analysis  
4. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist

Non-Psychopaths

1. The Banality of Evil  
2. Situational Evil

Types of Evil

1. Psychopathic, Situational, and Categorical  
2. The Jonestown Massacre

Crime Statistics

GOOD

Good Deeds _  
_Character _  
_Good and Evil Compared _  
_Courtesy

LOOSE ENDS

Unanswered Questions _  
_Noether's Theorem and Ethics _  
_Ethics and Aesthetics _  
_Symmetry and Pleasure

GOD

Can There Be Good without God _?  
_Can There Be Evil with God?

1. The Prevalence of Evil  
2. Human Suffering  
3. Suffering from Natural Causes

Choice

1. Intervention  
2. Choice and Character

The Arc of the Moral Universe

SYMMETRY, MORALITY, AND GOD

What Do We Mean by Goodness? _  
_The Highest Order

CONCLUSION

Standard and Authority

1. Standard  
2. Authority

Something New Under the Sun

REFERENCES

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

# INTRODUCTION

This book began as a debate on the Facebook group "Does God Exist." Some of the group are confirmed atheists, while others are devout believers. As you might expect, they clash. What caught my attention was a post that stated,

"When I say that an event or behavior is good or bad, the syntax of the language is to refer outward to the event or the behavior as its object, but it is really a comment about _my own state of mind_.* When I say that murder is evil, the actual meaning of that statement is that the state of my mind is that I very strongly prefer that the world would be a world without murder. It is a description of myself" (Michael Lepore, *italics mine).

My response to that post was,

"So, there is no objective right or wrong?"

Thus began the debate. Several members took the position that questions of morality are purely subjective. There is no real "right" or "wrong," they say; no actual good and evil. It depends entirely on the observer's point of view. Others argued the opposite case. To them, it's based on the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. So, its laws are absolute and universal.

My own position is different. It's based on science. I believe that good and evil are real. They're not just the product of someone's feverish imagination. People like Hitler and Charles Manson are really, really bad. People like Ghandi and Malala Yousefzai are really, really good. Those are facts. I believe that good and evil are as real as the buttons on your coat. It's all about "moral symmetry."

Moral symmetry describes how people treat each other. But it reflects a far broader kind of symmetry that governs the entire Universe. This universal symmetry is a fundamental principle of physics and cosmology. I will show how the science of the Cosmos impacts our moral behavior.

Before we begin, however, let's clarify some terms, and let's also be clear on exactly what this essay is all about.

First, what do we mean by the terms "objective" and "subjective"? To put it simply, "objective" refers to facts, while "subjective" refers to mere feelings or opinions.

More specifically, objective things are quantifiable and measurable. But subjective things are open to greater interpretation, and are based on attitudes and emotions. For example, if you say the Bible is the most published book in all of history, you can back up this assertion with publication records and statistics. It's a fact.

But if you assert that the Bible is the most influential book of all time, or that it's the greatest book of all time, there is no way you could verify this statement. It is based purely on your opinion.

We tend to think of objective entities as nouns, and subjective entities as adjectives. For instance if I say, "Joe is a great guy," "Joe" is a noun, but "great" is an adjective. Nouns are often solid things, which you can see and touch. But adjectives are only aspects of those things. Adjectives cannot stand alone.

But this distinction between noun and adjective is false. It's true that "great" in the above example is purely subjective. Some people might think Joe is a creep. On the other hand, if I say Joe has green eyes and shoulder-length hair, I am talking fact. The terms "green" and "shoulder-length" are both easily verified. You might disagree and claim his eyes are really blue. But you would be wrong.

So, when we talk about "good" and "evil," it's true that both terms are adjectives, not nouns. But they are the kind of adjectives that can be quantified and measured. They are objective facts.

With that in mind, here is what this book is about:

It's about morality. It's about proving good and evil are real; that they're not just an opinion; that they are based on a measurable standard; that the measurable standard comes not from religion, not from philosophy, but from science. What is that scientific standard? Symmetry. It's how things work in physics, in aesthetics, and even in ethics. The same symmetry that governs the interaction among subatomic particles, that forms the wings of a butterfly, that determines the genius of a snowflake, also has fashioned you and me as moral beings, and has given us the choice between what's evil and what's good.

That's what I will explain.

# MORALITY

_Definition_

Morality can be defined as rules about what people ought to do. Immorality is the violation of those rules. All known societies have such rules, and we can trace them as far back as the Code of Hammurabi, around 1754 BC, or later to the Ten Commandments, around 1400 BC.

The question here is whether any set of rules pertaining to good and evil are universal. Certainly, every religion makes that claim about its own tenets. Christians believe in baptism; Muslims in the veil; Jews in the Sabbath.

Beyond religion, philosophers from Plato to Aristotle to Kant have attempted to define universal standards of good and evil that everyone should adhere to.

Moral "relativists" take the opposite view. They claim there are no universal standards. Precisely because religions and cultures have such differing ideas about good and evil, we have no right to say any one of them is better than the others.

The following sections compare and contrast the two positions.

## Moral Relativism

In the 5th Century BC, the Greek historian Herodotus told a story about the Persian king Darius. The king asked a delegation of Greeks if any of them thought it was acceptable to eat the flesh of their father's dead body. His listeners were horrified at the suggestion, and all vigorously protested they would never do such a thing. Darius then asked a delegation of Callatiae from India whether they would consider burning their father's dead body. And they recoiled in disgust. Yet, it was common practice for Callatiae to do what the Greeks abhorred, and vice versa. From this interchange, the king concluded that there can be no universal moral standard, and that every society has its own peculiar ways (Wikipedia, "India").

Moral relativism "is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It's a version of morality that advocates 'To each his own,' and those who follow it say, 'Who am I to judge'" (International Encyclopedia of Philosophy). To those who take this position, morality is simply a social construct. And different cultures have widely differing constructs.

In 1947, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights drafted a "Declaration of Human Rights" for all mankind. The American Anthropological Society sharply objected. They maintained, "Standards and values are relative to the culture from which they derive, so that any attempt to formulate postulates that grow out of the beliefs or moral code of one culture must to that extend detract from the applicability of any Declaration of Human Rights to mankind as a whole" (American Anthropologist, Vol. 49, No. 4, p. 542).

A contributor to Quora, Gordon Hide, states the case this way: morality evolved in societies to improve survival chances through cooperative behavior. Since each society faces its own distinctive set of threats, they developed uniquely different moral codes to adapt to their own special set of circumstances. It would therefore be both impractical and harmful to impose any one culture's morals on another.

Hide then goes on to argue that moral relativism is therefore not a recipe for "anything goes." But rather it is a set of society specific "rules to sustain survival."

More harshly, Plato in Book One of "The Republic" quotes Thrasymachus that "Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger." And in his work "On Custom," Montaigne asserts, "The laws of nature are really just the laws of custom." He was objecting to what he perceived as the ethnocentrism of Europeans. At the time, the various Western powers were busy imposing their religion and culture on the poor, benighted natives of the New World.

Perhaps the most extreme position on moral relativism comes from the 19th century German philosopher Nietzsche. There is no free will, he declared. Therefore, "We should no more call a human being immoral for his harmful actions than we call the thunderstorm immoral for making us wet" (259). Free will, he stated, was designed by priests to make us dependent on them (254). According to Nietzsche, all human action is motivated by self interest (254). In effect, if it feels good, do it.

Nietzsche would probably agree with the argument that good and evil are subjective. They're not facts. They're just opinions. And everyone is entitled to their own opinions. In that sense, if I call someone "bad" for, let's say, stealing apples, that says more about me and my system of values, than about the person I'm condemning.

Moral relativism may be a counter to ethnocentrism. However, it has its drawbacks. For example – ISIS. Are their beliefs just as valid as anyone else's? And what about such abhorrent practices as slavery or clitorectomy? Do they not strain our limits of tolerance? As Geoffrey Widdison puts it, "To genuinely believe in that definition, then they have to believe that torture and murder of innocents, sexual assault, including that of children, and every other form of human cruelty are completely OK if society sanctions them" (Quora).

Moreover, anyone violating social norms is, by definition, evil. So, freeing the slaves would be an immoral act in the 19th Century South; same with interfering with a lynching; same with stopping a father in India from tossing acid in his daughter's face. Under moral relativism, all these deeds would be deemed "bad" because they disobey local custom.

The critique of moral relativism recalls this passage from Isaiah (5:20 ESV). "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."

##  Moral Absolutism

Moral absolutism is the opposite of moral relativism. Instead of defining good and evil as varying by religion, culture, or individual, moral absolutism holds that there is a universal set of moral prescriptions that apply to all people, regardless of their backgrounds; that there is only one right answer to any ethical question.

#### 1. In Religion

We are most likely to associate moral absolutism with religion. Practically all religions derive their moral precepts from a divine or higher source, and therefore regard any opposing beliefs as false.

The Old Testament commands: "Thou shalt not commit adultery," "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." In the New Testament, Jesus adds, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth . . .," and "When thou doest thine alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret . . ." The Quran prohibits, "Taking interest," "Sorcery," or "Fleeing upon confronting the enemy in battle." The Upanishads urge "Cleanliness," "The "Reading of scriptures," and "Regular prayers."

Each of these religions has a sacred text. That text contains injunctions about what people must do and must not do. For believers, those injunctions are moral absolutes.

### 2. In Philosophy

The concept of moral absolutism also comes from the early Greek philosophers. To Plato, in the 5th Century BC, everything we see on Earth is a mere reflection of what he calls the "Forms." And what are the Forms? They are idealized versions of things. For example, there is a Form for men and women, a Form for architecture, a Form for love, and so forth. Every category of thing has a Form. These Forms are abstract entities. They exist in a transcendent realm.

We humans are like primitive beings staring at shadows on a cave wall. We think those shadows are real. But, in fact, they are merely imperfect projections of Forms which we can never directly observe.

The principle Forms are the True, the Beautiful, and the Good. And of these, the main one is the Good. It is an absolute and perfect version of goodness, and every good deed that happens on Earth is a reflection of it. Moreover, the Good is the basis for understanding all the other Forms. It is the cause of all that is right and beautiful (Davis, 67).

Like his teacher Plato, Aristotle also considered goodness as absolute. Indeed, he thought it could be measured mathematically. He rejected the notion of Forms as too fanciful and impossible to prove. Instead, he anchored his concept in down-to-earth practicality.

To Aristotle, goodness is defined by the "Golden Mean." In the "Nichomachean Ethics" he writes, "All things that come into being as products of art or nature exist in virtue of a certain proportion." In particular, every virtue is a mean state between a pair of "vicious" states. For example, courage is a mean between rashness and cowardice. To use a medical analogy, you can also have too much or too little exercise, consumption, or drinking. In each case the proper choice is a balance between two extremes (Hursthouse, 109).

Virtue is a mean "in terms of which we are well...disposed in relation to passions, " says Aristotle (109). Plato viewed all passions as bad, and needing to be controlled by reason. Aristotle, by contrast, viewed the passions as "natural elements in the human psyche" (109). We are born, he says, with an ability to enjoy eating, love, the joy of others; and to be distressed by physical damage, anger, or the distress of others. In each case these passions can be brought into balance between deficiency and excess. That balance is what Aristotle considers virtue.

Justice is the term we use to express that balance. To Aristotle, "...it is the virtue that expresses one's conception of oneself as a member of a community of free and equal human beings" (Kraut, 179). Injustice is the result of inequality or unfairness.

Aristotle delineated two types of justice: distributive and corrective. Distributive justice involves the allocation of benefits, such as honor or wealth. It is just "if and only if equal persons receive equal shares" (Young, 185). The "mean" here lies between too little and too much. Corrective justice arises when one party has wronged another. This creates an inequality. Equality must be restored (184-185).

Finally, Aristotle comments on morality and pleasure. Should we do good deeds because it makes us feel good? No. You do good because "it is the right action in the situation." And that, Aristotle says, is "why it pleases me" (Frede, 260). Pleasure is not a motive for moral action but a side-benefit of its performance. As a result, the best life is also the most pleasant one.

Over 1000 years after Aristotle, the German philosopher Emmanuel Kant came out with his own version of absolutism. He called it the "Categorical Imperative." To put it simply, it means "no exceptions." That is, certain actions are either necessary or prohibited all the time and unconditionally. He lists such behavior as lying, theft, suicide, cruelty to animals, and so forth.

For example, one must always tell the truth and never lie. Does this mean don't tell an ugly bride she's beautiful? Yes. You must tell her the brutal truth. Or, don't lie to a murderer about the location of his intended victim? Yes. You must either give out the correct hiding place, or hold your tongue. The reason is Kant's "first formulation." It states, "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can, at the same time, will that it become a universal law." So, telling the truth can be a universal law. Lying cannot.

Aristotle said you do good for its own sake, and, as a side benefit, it pleases you. But Kant goes further. To him an act has "moral worth" only if it's done out of duty and responsibility; not if it is done from inclination (261). In fact, do it even if you hate it. Kant called this prescription "deontology," meaning the study of duty (The Basics of Philosophy).

In this section we have seen several examples of moral absolutism. Some come from religion. Others, from philosophy. In the case of religion, the standard is the sacred text. If the text says so, it's a fact. In the case of philosophy, the standard is logic. It's a fact if the reasoning is irrefutable. In either case, the standard makes the morality objective.

## Rationalization

Upton Sinclair famously observed, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Stunning examples of this truism can be found in the coal industry attitude toward environmentalism, the oil industry attitude toward global warming, or the gun industry attitude toward mass murder. It turns out that when self-interest is at stake, people can rationalize any position. Morality suddenly becomes very flexible.

In their provocative book The Enigma of Reason, Hugo Mercer and Don Sperber show just how flexible. In one experiment conducted by Melvin Snyder in the 1970s, he demonstrated how students will jump at the flimsiest excuse to avoid sitting next to a handicapped person.

Two TV screens were set up in a single room divided by a partition. Two chairs were set up in each room, facing the TVs. In the first partition one of the two chairs was occupied by an individual with heavy metal braces on his legs. In the other partition the chair was occupied by a non-handicapped individual.

One of the TVs showed a slapstick comedy. The other TV had a "sad clown" comedy. The student subjects of the experiment were asked which partition they wanted to sit in (301). They consistently chose the section with the non-handicapped person. Their excuse was they preferred one type of movie over the other. But even when the movies were switched, students still shunned the disabled person room. Clearly their "reason" was fake. Their real motive was discomfort.

Now, we might expect young, impressionable students to make questionable choices. But another experiment, cited by Mercer and Sperber, involved judges. These are mature, highly educated individuals whose very job description is allegiance to the letter of the law.

The author of this second study began noticing a certain pattern in the decisions of Israeli judges sitting on parole hearings. At the start of the day, the judges typically granted two-thirds of the paroles. This rate, however, dropped to zero by 10:00 AM. At 10:30, the rate bounced back to 65%. But following a couple of hours, it plunged. After 2:00 PM it returned to 60%. Then, the rate at which paroles were granted declined again to very low levels by the end of the day (299-300).

What could possibly explain such a drastic swing in judicial decision making? Could it be that the worthy offenders only showed up at certain times during the day, and the unworthy at others? Or might there be another factor at play here? The study author observed that variations in decision making just happened to coincide with snack time at 10:00 AM and lunch time from 1:00 to 2:00 PM. It appears the judges felt both well fed and well disposed after these breaks, but then got hungrier and meaner as time went on. In other words, their judicial "reasons" were mere excuses for their moods. The "emotional dog" is wagging the "rational tail" (Haidt).

Well, after all, students and judges are only human. We shouldn't be shocked at their frailties. But what about those whom we revere as paragons of intellect and virtue? Take, for example, Thomas Jefferson.

When we visit the white marble memorial to Jefferson in Washington, D.C., we are reminded of his shining words, "All men are created equal."

In addition to being a statesman, however, Jefferson also owned a 5000 acre Virginia plantation at Monticello. On that land he kept 200 slaves (302). So, in addition to the Declaration of Independence, he also penned these words: "Blacks and Whites can't live in harmony because of the many defects in Black people's physique and spirit. . . This unfortunate difference of colour and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people" (303).

He zeroed in on one "unfortunate difference" in particular. Nothing can be done to alleviate the condition of Blacks "because they don't have flowing hair" (304).

He concluded that the best thing to do would be to send them back to Africa because, "Their amalgamation with the other color produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character can innocently consent" (304). Thus stated the lover of Sally Hemmings, and putative father of her children.

Mercer and Sperber conclude that intellectual "reason" may not be as great as it's cracked up to be. We tend to view reason as the antidote to blind emotion and impulse. We value cool minds over hot heads. Yet, on closer inspection, more often than not, reason acts as a thin veneer, concealing the naked self-interest driving our behavior.

Why discuss rationalization? It's because that is how many, if not most, people justify their choices. Whether you are a moral relativist or absolutist, your moral decisions may, in fact, come from an entirely different source: selfishness.

Now, that is not the way it's supposed to be. But that's often the way it is. So say Mercer and Sperber. Moral relativism is particularly susceptible to a rationalization trap. If you reject absolute morality, and deem good and evil interchangeable, then it's all the easier to bend your ethics for convenience.

Once you do that, however, morality stops being moral. It becomes just another word for self-interest.

In this section we have reviewed three different approaches to good and evil. These include moral relativism, moral absolutism, and rationalization. Rationalization reduces the question of ethics to hypocrisy. Moral relativism almost does. That leaves absolutism.

The problem with absolutism, however, is it comes from either religion or philosophy. Both require a certain amount of blind faith or credulity. Also, it seems to fly in the face of reality. Different people do have wildly differing belief systems.

In the following pages, I will introduce a new approach, one based on science; and based not just on science, in general, but on a particular scientific concept.

# SYMMETRY

_Definition_

Symmetry means invariant to transformation. That's the technical definition. However, we use the word symmetry in a variety of different ways: a symmetrical leaf, a symmetrical face, a symmetrical relationship, a symmetrical law. What all these forms have in common is that something stays the same even when it appears in different times, different places, or different conditions.

According to the New Scientist, "To physicists, a thing is symmetrical if there is something you can do to it so that after you have finished doing it, it looks the same as it did before" (15).

For example, in a symmetrical leaf the pattern on one side of the leaf is the same as the pattern on the other side. The pattern stays the same, even though the sides differ.

Another example is balance. If you place an ounce of iron on both sides of a scale, that's literal equality. However, an ounce of iron will also balance with an ounce of feathers. That is also equality. The items might be different, but the weight remains the same.

By the same token, the force of gravity is vastly different on Earth than the moon. On the moon you can hit a golf ball for miles! But thanks to Newton, we now know that gravity works the same in both places. In either case, the force of gravity equals mass divided by distance squared. We don't need one theory to explain gravity on the moon, and another theory to explain it on the Earth. Miraculously, one theory explains both cases. That's symmetry.

Similarly, Einstein demonstrated the symmetry of motion. Two individuals moving at greatly different speeds, say 10 mph vs. 300 mph., are both justified in considering themselves stationary, with the rest of the world moving past them. The theory of relativity tells us that the perspective of both travelers is equivalent, regardless of speed. "Einstein firmly believed that the laws of physics should be the same for all observers regardless of how they are moving" (Than).

The concept of symmetry led to one of the greatest insights in science. "Symmetry is so integral to the way the universe works that Albert Einstein used it as a guiding principle when he devised his General Theory of Relativity . . . Through various thought experiments, Einstein discovered another fundamental symmetry in nature, called general covariance. Under this symmetry, physical laws act the same regardless of whether an object is accelerating or at rest. In other words, the force of gravity and the force resulting from acceleration are two facets of the same force – that is, they are symmetrical" (Than).

We can therefore use symmetry to refer to equivalence, to balance, or to reflection. In the case of the leaf, both sides are equivalent. In the case of weight, both sides of the scale are balanced. In the case of a mirror, one side reflects the other. But even though we're using different words, in all three cases, we are basically talking about sameness.

Plato declared that in nature there are three "absolutes": the True, the Beautiful, and the Good (Penrose, 22). It is my intention, in the following pages to demonstrate that the Good is indeed an absolute. It is not just an opinion. It doesn't exist merely "in the eye of the beholder." It is a fact. It is a fact that can be observed, measured, and replicated. It is a single fact, not a multiplicity of divergent facts. There is only one correct answer to every ethical question.

I shall conduct my demonstration by showing how the scientific concept of symmetry is all encompassing. It effects not just the True and the Beautiful, but also the Good. Because of symmetry, goodness is a fact. For the same reason, evil is too.

## Symmetry in Physics

Whatever I say here about Good and Evil, it's all based on science. So, let's start off by talking about science. Symmetry is a fundamental principle behind all the basic laws of physics. The following sections will explain how symmetry works, where it comes from, how it dominates the Universe at all levels, and why it makes sense that it should do so. Finally, in general terms, we'll look at how the mathematics of symmetry filter down to our everyday lives.

#### 1. Physics: The Universe is Symmetric

The Universe is an orderly place. It's not chaotic, random, or haphazard. Take, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem. The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle equals the sum of the squares of the opposite sides. Now, this applies not to just one triangle, in particular, but to all right triangles for all times and everywhere. Nothing random about that! Or consider Newton's theory of gravity (Gravity = Mass/Distance squared), or Einstein's theory of relativity (E=mc2). Once again, these formulas govern the forces of the Universe always and forever. So, nothing haphazard here.

Not only do these mathematical formulas apply, but they apply very strictly. For example, the accuracy of General Relativity has been measured down to the 1016th decimal. The accuracy of Quantum Mechanics has been measured even lower. This is not a picture of Cosmic Chaos.

There is, however, a higher principle at work here. All the formulas cited above express different forces, but they all have one thing in common – invariance. They all work exactly the same way wherever and whenever they apply. In other words, they are invariant to transformation. The basic laws governing the Universe are symmetric!

### 2. Physics: Symmetry is Fundamental

In physics, there are symmetries of time, place, motion, angle, and spin. In fact, P.W. Anderson says "physics is the study of symmetry." And Brian Greene contends "symmetry underlies the laws of the Universe."

Roger Penrose states, "Our entire model of the Universe is built on symmetries" (264). He goes on to detail some examples: "isotropy (laws are the same in all directions), homogeneity (same in all places), time invariance (same at all times) phase symmetry (electromagnetism)" (270). For those reasons, Dave Goldberg tells us, "To understand how things work, we need to understand symmetry" (xii).

Going further, Roger Penrose explains, "All physical interactions (including gravity) act in accordance with an idea which, strictly speaking, depends crucially upon certain physical structures possessing a symmetry that, at a fundamental level of description, is indeed necessarily exact" (249).

Now, what "fundamental" "physical interactions" – "including gravity" is he referring to?

Here is how I would explain it. Everything that happens results from a force. That force can take the form of muscle power, mechanical power, electric power, water pressure, wind, heat, combustion, and so forth. But these various familiar movers can all be traced back to gravity, plus the three basic forces of the Standard Model.

The Standard Model in physics is the most fundamental model we have for how things work. It has been called the most successful theory in science, because it has never been disproven. It describes all the microscopic interactions that shape our lives.

These include electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force. Electromagnetism, binds electrons to atomic nuclei; the strong force binds protons and neutrons together within those nuclei; and the weak force is responsible for much of the natural radiation in the Universe by breaking down neutrons into protons, electrons, and neutrinos. All three forces are symmetric.

Gravity is not included in the Standard Model, and it may not actually be a force. Rather, Einstein describes it as the warping of spacetime, creating paths through which we all travel. Nevertheless, gravity is also symmetric, operating in exactly the same way over space and time.

Symmetry, therefore, describes how our Universe works at the most basic level.

### 3. Physics: Unification

Over the past two centuries, physicists have been gradually consolidating the fundamental forces and elements. In the 1830s, James Clerk Maxwell discovered that electricity and magnetism are actually two different aspects of a single force – electromagnetism. In 1905, Einstein informed us that e = mc2. In other words, matter and energy are equivalent, and matter is really just energy in a "frozen state." In 1979, Sheldon Glashow and Abdos Salam won the Nobel Prize for their discovery that, at the time of the Big Bang, electromagnetism and the weak force were combined. Thus, it turns out that all matter and at least three of the five basic forces of nature derive from a single force.

Now, the hunt is on for a Grand Unification Theory, or GUT. Most scientists believe it's only a matter of time before they find that the "electro-weak" force was combined with the strong force, and that all three forces are combined with gravity. When that happens, we will have uncovered the "Theory of Everything."

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Cern, Switzerland has been engaged in that hunt for several years. They have come close, but so far have fallen short. What gives them reason for hope is that at extremely high temperatures, electromagnetism and the weak force become stronger, and the strong force becomes weaker. At some point they all may converge.

When and if unification is discovered, then, the explanation for universal symmetry will be quite simple. All the basic forces of nature act the same, regardless of transformation, because they are all expressions of one single force which governs everything in the Universe.

### 4. Physics: Why Is the Universe Symmetric?

The Universe is lazy. That's what Isaac Newton tells us his his First Law of Motion: "An object at rest stays at rest and in motion stays at the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

Unification is one reason for this cosmic laziness. If one force dominates the Universe, then all events are governed by a single order.

Even without unification, however, if the basic forces of nature are themselves symmetric, if they operate the same exact way over space and time, then all of the powers based on them would also be symmetric.

Emmy Noether expressed this essential laziness in her famous Theorem. It has been called, "The most beautiful idea in physics" (Looking Glass University). Noether was born to a Jewish family in Germany in 1882. After completing her dissertation in mathematics in 1907, she attempted to acquire a teaching position; but for several years was turned down because she was a woman. Eventually, she became a professor at the University of Göttingen. In 1933, after Hitler's Germany expelled all Jews from teaching positions, she moved to the United States.

Noether's Theorem expresses universal laziness in the most elegant way. "Every symmetry has a corresponding conservation law," she wrote in 1915. Space symmetry, for example, can be traced back to the First Law of Motion; time symmetry to the First Law of Thermodynamics (Kosmann-Schwartzbach). That is, "the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."

Symmetry conserves energy. That's what Noether is saying. And in a Universe that prefers the easiest path, symmetry is always the first choice.

In their book "Design in Nature," Adrian Bejan and Reder Zane, give us a down-to-earth look at how symmetry and conservation work together. Their theory is called the "constructal law." And it states, "For a finite size flow system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve in such a way that provides easier access to the currents that flow through it" (3).

For example, consider the flow of tributaries in the delta of a river system; the flow of blood through our arteries, veins, and capillaries; the flow of air through the alveoli of the lungs; the flow of electricity through a lightening bolt; the flow of neurons and dendrites in our brain; the flow of a snowflake as it disperses heat; the flow of vehicles through a traffic system.

Each of these examples has a familiar tree-like structure. Each has a symmetry of pattern with every smaller and smaller iteration.

If these designs look familiar, it's because they are fractals. A single pattern is repeated at every successive scale. This form of evolving symmetry is ubiquitous in nature. It obeys the principle of least action as it flows through its particular terrain. And it reaffirms Noether's Theorem of symmetry and energy conservation.

### 5. Physics: The Origin of Symmetry

For starters, let's go back to the Big Bang. For a brief moment, everything was one thing. All matter, all energy, all the principles of physics were unified. Then, everything expanded and inflated (Guth). But this happened so fast that the result was homogeneity. The Universe looked pretty much the same in all directions. As a result, the forces of the Cosmos reflected each other in principle. Gravity, electro-magnetism, etc. operated the same, even though trillions of miles apart, because they all came from the same source. This may have been the origin of universal symmetry.

From 2001 to 2010, the spacecraft called the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measured the microwave background of the Universe. This is the background radiation left over after the Big Bang. What they found is that the early Universe appeared nearly identical in all places. That finding confirmed MIT Professor Alan Guth's theory of cosmic inflation.

Imagine if the Universe emerged from several different points in space. Imagine if it had many beginnings. Then, it might be composed of many different substances. And those substances might be governed by many different principles. Or, imagine if inflation never occurred, but rather the Universe evolved and spread gradually over time. Then, again, it might appear quite different from place to place. But our Universe came from a single point and expanded instantaneously in all directions. That, I believe, is why we have symmetry.

### 6. Physics: How Does the Symmetry of the Universe Affect Our Lives?

Sir Roger Penrose is a Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University. He is perhaps best known for his collaboration with Stephen Hawking on Black Holes. In his comprehensive tome, The Road to Reality: A complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, he gives a modern twist to Plato's theory of the Forms.

In Plato the Forms are abstract ideals of which objects on Earth are imperfect approximations. For Penrose, instead of the Forms, he would substitute math.

The basic mathematical formulas that govern the Universe include: General and Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the Standard Model, Newton's Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Noether's Theorem, Fermat's Theorem, and many others. The precise version of these laws are expressed in physics equations.

These equations describe all the underlying forces of nature. Like the Forms, they are abstract but real. Like the Forms, they express ultimate truths (13). And like the Forms they are universally and eternally correct.

The motion of the sun, moon, seasons, tides reveal regular patterns. These patterns proceed with mathematical precision. Our understanding of nature rests on mathematics to separate the true from the false (9).

Penrose describes three worlds: mathematical, physical, and mental. Everything in each world is "entirely governed" by the preceding world (19). Mathematical formulas determine the shape of physical realities. Physical realities determine the perceptions of our minds. That is how the fundamental laws of physics control the way we think.

As we have seen, all the basic principles of physics are symmetric. Whatever other aspect of life they govern, they have that one thing in common. Like Brian Greene says, "Symmetry underlies the laws of the Universe." These mathematical symmetries, according to Penrose, are reflected in the physical world. And those physical444 symmetries are imprinted on our minds.

In the following sections, I will show how the symmetries of physics shape Aesthetics and Ethics. These are two areas thought by some to be purely subjective. But if Plato and Penrose are correct, I will be able to show they are both based on objective, measurable, verifiable fact.

## Aesthetic Symmetry

"Beauty," they say, "is in the eyes of the beholder." But is it really? Does everyone have their own personal standards of loveliness? Is there no agreement among people about what's attractive and what's ugly? Plato and Aristotle, certainly, would disagree. Both of them felt Beauty was absolute, not relative. In the following section I'll show you why.

#### 1. Aesthetics: Symmetry in the Arts

In aesthetics, symmetry plays a critical role in all of the arts. For example, in music, "symphony" comes from a Greek word meaning harmonious. The beauty of the fugue, as Bach has shown us, lies in same pattern mirroring itself on separate scales. A fugue is defined as having "interweaving, repetitive elements" (Merriam-Webster).

All of Western music has a mathematic structure based on repetition. The distance between notes is built on an exact step increase in sound frequency. The number of beats per measure, and the number of counts per note are defined in the signature of every musical piece. Together they determine a tempo continuously repeated, often to the end of the piece. Anyone with a metronome knows how mathematically strict these repetitions must be.

In the 500s BC, Pythagoras noted that the most beautiful harmonies on lyres and flutes correspond to the simplest fractional ratios between the lengths of vibrating strings or pipes (Penrose, 10). Thus, even the most flowing, melodic piece is fundamentally a set of symmetric mathematical equations.

In poetry, the element of repetition is critical. Consider Poe's "The Raven:"

"Once upon a midnight dreary  
While I pondered weak and weary"

Each line contains an equal number of syllables. And every two lines end with the same sound – like "weary" and "dreary."

In architecture symmetry has been the standard of beauty for centuries, and across a wide diversity of cultures. Consider, for example, the Pyramids, Stonehenge, the Taj Mahal, the Eiffel Tower, even the Alamo. Each of these structures is an example of mirror symmetry where one side reflects the other.

In the 1500s, Leonardo Da Vinci discovered a feature of architecture he called the "Divine Proportion." Today, we refer to it as the "Golden Ratio," or "Phi." It is 0.618. What Da Vinci found is that in building proportions, as well as in other fields, unconsciously the designers chose this ratio as most pleasing to the eyes. We see 0.618 in the Pyramids (2500s BC), the Parthenon (400s BC), Notre Dame Cathedral (1100s), the Taj Mahal (1500s), and Toronto's CN Tower (1900s), where the distance from the base to the observation deck (342 meters), divided by the distance from the base to the top (553 meters), is Phi.

Why Phi is so attractive remains a mystery. But the fact that it keeps showing up is a good example of invariance.

In painting and in sculpture, basic principles of design include: "balance, symmetry, and repetition." And design is critical to art. As the American artist Kenyon Cox puts it, "Without design there may be representation, but there can be no art." In other words, you can do a still life of a bowl of fruit, for example, and create a fairly accurate copy of the subject matter. But unless the bowl and the fruit are arranged in an artful way, you do not have a good painting.

Design is realized through composition. This is how the different elements of the sculpture or the painting relate to each other. You start with a rectangle. That's your frame. Then, you draw a vertical line down the middle, to create two equal sides. Within this framework, balance, symmetry, and repetition can be achieved in a variety of ways.

For instance, there's Phi. The canvas can be designed in such a way that it has a nautilus configuration, a swirl of loops, based the Golden Ratio, 0.618. This type of composition is prominent in works by Van Gogh, Monet, Da Vinci, and Michelangelo.

Another form of design relies on "lines of coincidence" and "points of coincidence" (Goldstein). Lines of coincidence are parallel lines drawn from one end of a canvas to another. They include vertical, sinister, and Baroque. The vertical lines are top to bottom. The sinister are diagonals to the left. And the Baroque are diagonals to the right.

Points of coincidence are critical features that fall along the line. For example, a foot, a hip, and an outstretched arm may all fall along a diagonal line, connecting them together.

Van Gogh created a painting of cypress trees, using both Baroque and sinister lines. The branches of the trees fell along one axis or the other. But long before Van Gogh, an anonymous Egyptian sculptor in 3500 B.C. made an engraving of the empress Hatshepsut, also using sinister and Baroque lines. The elements of design were well understood even then.

A third element of design is called mirroring. That's when something on one side inversely reflects something on the other side. For instance, we've seen many paintings in which mountains or trees are reflected in a lake. In a sculpture of three egrets, one of the birds has his beak pointing diagonally upwards and to the right, while, on the other side, another bird points his beak diagonally upwards and to the left. In that way the elements of the sculpture balance each other off (Goldstein).

In real life, of course, items don't always line up in picture perfect ways. But that's what makes art artful. Symmetry lies at the heart of good design.

### 2. Aesthetics: Symmetry in Nature

The Golden Ratio of 0.618 abounds not only in architecture, but throughout nature. Consider the following diverse spiral structures: hurricanes, galaxies, flowers, seashells. In each case, the ratio of one spiral to the next larger spiral is 0.618. The result is a double symmetry. First, each spiral mimics the same pattern as the others. And second, the proportion of 0.618 gets repeated from one loop to the next. The result is a striking natural beauty.

Artists have paid tribute to the mirror symmetry of mountains reflected in lakes. We are also captivated by the mirror symmetry of butterfly wings.

Birds and bees honor symmetry through mate selection. Studies have shown females from a variety of species are more likely to choose males with symmetric features (Perrett, et al). These include young female swordtail fish, zebra finches, and lizards (Morris).

Symmetry bestows certain benefits to plants and animals. As Noether's Theorem predicts, it allows them to conserve energy. That enables them to grow larger, to produce more splendid displays. In flowers, it results in a greater production of nectar. That nectar has a higher sugar content. As a result, bees are attracted to more symmetric flowers. Symmetry tastes sweet (Morris, xii).

The beauty of nature reflects the laws of physics. Because the laws are universal, we see the same patterns being repeated symmetrically. And because this repetition conserves energy, we see stronger, healthier, more vibrant, sexier, and even tastier results. Those features attract mates from their own species, and admiration from people like us.

### 3. Aesthetics: Symmetry in Humans

We have seen how the beauty of nature doesn't lie merely "in the eye of the beholder." It's more than just a personal, subjective opinion. In fact, nature's beauty can be measured. And that measurement can be used to accurately predict attraction. It turns out, the same can be said for humans.

"In biology, recent studies have found that humans and other animals are highly attuned to symmetry in each other, and often use it to gauge beauty and health during mate selection. Sensitivity to symmetry, it seems, is ingrained into our behavior" (Than).

In one experiment, carried out at the University of Texas, babies aged two to three months old were shown pictures of two faces. One was symmetric. The other was not. Consistently, the babies stared at the symmetric face longer (Langlois).

Plastic surgeons can measure harmonious proportions to an exacting degree. For example, the distance between the center of a woman's eyes should be just under half the width of her face. The distance from the eyes to the mouth should be about one-third the height of the face (Stevens).

The distance between the eyes and the mouth should be about two-thirds the distance from the eyes to the bottom of the chin. The distance from the tip of the nose to the bottom of the chin should be about two-thirds the distance from the bottom of the chin to the eyes. In the last two examples substitute the phrase "about two-thirds" for the more precise ratio 0.618.

These proportions don't just apply to the face. The ratio of two top finger tips to the whole finger is 0.618. So is the ratio of the hand to the forearm. Other body ratios are listed below:

__________________________________________________ body height  
__________________________________ top of head to finger tips  
______________________ top of head to navel  
______________ top of head to pectorals  
_________ top of head to base of skull

In each case the top line is 1.618 the length of the next lower line. The next lower line is, therefore, 0.618 the length of the line above it.

This is the Golden Ratio. Apparently, it not only describes the symmetry of a Cathedral and the symmetry of a flower, but also the symmetry of a person. "Leonardo Da Vinci modelled his perfect human form after the Golden Ratio proportions laid out by Vetruvius, an ancient Roman architect" (Than).

Based on these proportions scientists have developed objective tests of how beautiful you are. In an article entitled, "The Beauty of Symmetry," a group of men were shown two pictures of the same woman. One of them was slightly less symmetric than the other. The men were asked which picture they considered more appealing. By a margin of eight out of ten, they chose the face with the greater symmetry (YouTube).

Other studies focused on bodies. One investigator plainly stated his conclusions in his title, "Symmetrical Bodies Are More Beautiful to Humans" (Than). In a second report, William Bacon of Brunel University in the United Kingdom, detailed his results in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." Using a 3D optical scanner, the author made virtual molds of 77 adult bodies - minus the heads - and measured them for symmetry. He then asked 87 volunteers to rate the images for attractiveness. Women rated men, and men rated women.

Bacon concluded, "Although differences in left-right symmetry are almost undetectable to the human eye, both men and women rated symmetric bodies more attractive." Also, the more symmetric the bodies, the more masculine the men and feminine the women. That is, the men were taller, with broader shoulders and narrower hips. The women had larger hips, longer legs, and bigger breasts.

Symmetry may also be one reason young people are considered more attractive. According to Perrett, et al, "Asymmetries in face shape due to differential growth and aging will therefore be more prominent in older faces" (305). And Kowner concludes, "Asymmetry itself may be a perceptual cue to age."

Why is human symmetry so attractive? It's probably for the same reason as symmetry in nature. As I've noted, the Universe is lazy. It likes to conserve energy. And the conservation of energy is linked to health and durability.

For example, the human fetus is designed to grow in two equal parts along the spine. In nature, and in the animal kingdom, bilateral symmetry is the underlying scaffolding for growth.

Tiny abnormalities, however, might occur which alter that natural equivalence. But a perfectly symmetrical face and body are signs of biological health and fitness. People with symmetric features have stronger immune systems. In addition, it's easier for our brains to process equality. Asymmetry creates more of a challenge.

Other studies question whether asymmetry is the cause of bad health. Rather, they claim, it might be the other way around. Bad health, genetic disorders, and trauma do cause asymmetry. "People might subconsciously avoid minor asymmetries simply because they've evolved to avoid major ones" (Pappas).

Attractive people obtain a lot of benefits. As with insects, fish, and lizards, it's easier for attractive people to find mates. Moreover, they get better jobs, earn more money, and are perceived as smarter and friendlier. These perceptions, as Penrose explained, have a physical basis, and that physical basis is wholly determined by math.

## Moral Symmetry

Now, it's time to get to the heart of the matter. Having provided a general context by way of Physics and Aesthetics, we can now zero in on the key questions of Good and Evil. Is there a standard we can use to define what these terms mean? Is that standard universal? Is it measurable? Where does it come from? How does the strict mathematical symmetry of physics filter down to symmetry in nature, in biology, in human perception, and, ultimately, in how we treat each other in social interaction? In what sense is our morality shaped and determined by the basic laws of the Universe?

#### 1. Ethics: The Golden Rule

Some say morality is relative, and that good and evil are just a matter of opinion. For example: "Good and bad are subjective by definition. When I say something is evil or good, that says nothing about that object or person. There is no measurable "goodness" or "badness" in them. When I say something is good or bad, it only says something about me" (Herrman).

I disagree. I think good and evil are measurable and observable character traits. Just as we can describe someone as green-eyed and flat-footed, or generous and giving, or courageous and honest, just so we can call them bad or good. It's not just a matter of opinion. It's a fact.

The danger of the subjective approach is moral relativism. This is a belief system based on religions, cultures, and individuals having differing views about right and wrong, good and bad. Each culture believes their beliefs are correct. So, who are we to say which are valid and which are not?

I have a different view. The basis, I believe, for a universal ethic comes from the Golden Rule. It conveys a moral symmetry. I treat you as I would have you treat me. Just as I would not want you to injure me, or steal from me, or cheat me, or kill me, just so, it would be wrong and evil for me to do that to you.

So, for example, if you feel offended when someone refuses to shake your hand, that's how you know that someone else would feel offended if you did that to them. If you feel cheated if someone grabs your wallet and steals your money, that's how you know someone else would feel cheated, if you did that to them. That's how you know the act is wrong. That's how you know what's evil and what's good.

In human relations, the Golden Rule is such a basic principle that Jesus is said to have proclaimed that all you really needed to know was, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

In the First Century A.D., the Jewish sage Rabbi Hillel was asked to teach the tenets of the Torah. He answered simply, "Love thy friend as you would yourself."

In the Sixth Century B.C., Confucius proclaimed, "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." In the Seventh Century A.D. the Quran exhorts, "Desire for others what you desire for yourself."

All societies, to my knowledge, embrace some version of the Golden Rule. Long before it became enshrined in Hammurabi's Code in 1754 B.C., the lex talionis preached "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth..." That same principle reappears across various times and cultures, including: the Laws of Moses in the 1400s B.C., the Twelve Tables of Roman Law in the 450s B.C., in Anglo-Saxon, Old Norse, and Icelandic Laws from the first and second centuries AD (Van Drusen, 956).

The lex talionis is seen as an expression of "natural law." This is variously described as either the law of God or the law of nature, depending on the source. However, as one commentator states, it contains a basic principle underlying civil law. "Let's just say that the eye/tooth statement perfectly captures the rule of equivalence, balance, and precision in a stunning way. It holds before us the possibility of getting the measure of value right" (William Ian Miller, quoted in Van Drusen, 949).

P.W. Atkins calls symmetry the "quantification of beauty." By the same token, we can call symmetry the "quantification of morality" in a relationship. We do it in contracts, in rituals, in courtesies. And we can measure the asymmetry, manifested in cruelty, indifference, ignorance, greed.

Symmetry in physics means that the laws of nature are universal. The law of gravity or the law of relativity work the same way in Andromeda as they do on Earth. Symmetry in morality would also mean that certain moral principles apply in all human cultures, even the ones we're unaware of. The best example of this is the Golden Rule. It is basically another version of the balance expressed in the lex talionis. All religions, from Christianity to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, contain some version of the Golden Rule.

Even little children seem to have an ingrained sense of fair play, and are quick to call foul when they think it's being violated (McAuliffe, et al, 2017). And in our society, the symbol of justice is aptly depicted by a blindfolded figure holding a balanced scale. That is moral symmetry.

But if we can define good and evil in terms of the Golden Rule, then, where did the Golden Rule come from? Are moral symmetry, aesthetic symmetry, and physical symmetry all related to each other, and do they all emanate from a higher principle of universal symmetry?

Some are skeptical: "How can morality be a principle of the Universe? The Universe doesn't care if things blow up in it, or anything living in it" (Herrman).

True. But consider: moral, aesthetic, and physical symmetry are all facts. They dominate their respective fields. Whether it's fairness in Ethics, or harmony in Aesthetics, or invariance in Physics, in each case, symmetry is the critical element. Is this just a coincidence?

"Okay," the skeptic admits. "Symmetry happens a lot. But 'the Universe has some symmetry' and 'morality is based on a type of symmetry' does not mean that morality is because of the symmetry we see in the Universe. Two things having a similar characteristic does not imply they are related. A spinning wheel and a car have wheels. That does not make them related" (Herrman).

Our skeptic acknowledges the prevalence of symmetry in physics, aesthetics, and morality, but he does not believe they are related.

So, the challenge is to show that they are; to tie it all together, and, in particular, to relate moral symmetry, at one extreme, to universal symmetry, at the other.

I am wary of coincidences. And the widespread operation of symmetry in physics, aesthetics, and morality suggests an underlying connection. What is that connection?

### 2. Ethics: The Golden Rule and Empathy

When we seek out the basis for the Golden Rule, the simple answer, I believe, is empathy. We treat others as we would have them treat us because we can put ourselves in their shoes. We know how they feel. Indeed, we feel how they feel. When we hear a baby crying, we feel its distress. When we visit a hospitalized patient, we feel their pain. Our purest motive for helping them out is to alleviate that suffering and relieve that pain.

Watanabe and Yatsuka define empathy as, "the ability to recognize thoughts and feelings within another conscious being." It entails actually experiencing another's situation as if it were your own. This was literally demonstrated in an experiment on a macaque monkey. An electrode was implanted in his frontal cortex. Observing a technician reach for a peanut led to a complementary neuron firing in the first monkey's brain. It was as if the onlooking monkey was doing the action himself, the authors explain. Naturalist Diane Ackerman concludes, "We inhabit a mirror world."

That is the sense in which goodness is an end in itself. We don't do it for financial gain, or material reward. We do it because we feel it. And why is that so? The reason is because in all the ways that count the most, we are alike. We are equal. That equality is a form of symmetry. We all have feelings and emotions, thoughts and perceptions, loves and hates. We all bleed; we all cry; we all laugh and smile. As Shylock famously argues,

"I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,  
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same  
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,  
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter  
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?  
If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?  
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the  
rest, we will resemble you in that"  
(Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice).

The biological and psychological symmetry among people is the basis for the compassion that we feel for each other, and therefore for the moral symmetry we adhere to.

Biological equality underlies moral equality. That, I believe, is where the Golden Rule comes from. Consider the bond we have with our pets. Certainly, they are not just like us. But we do relate to them emotionally. And to the extent we feel that bond, we are moved to treat them with kindness.

To that effect, look at the non-verbal language of emotions displayed by both humans and animals. We cry, we laugh, we growl, we yelp when we're hurt, we moan, purr, or wag our tails when pleased, we shake our heads or go, "Eh," when resistant, and so forth. What are all these expressions, except a way to externalize our internal feelings? It's a major way we have of sharing those feelings with others, and letting them know, "Hey, I'm just like you. So, treat me accordingly."

Moreover, can anyone claim these feelings are purely "subjective"? When a dog growls, does anyone think the dog doesn't know what he's feeling? And for those of us who hear that growl, is it just a matter of opinion that he's expressing anger? If you think he's happy, and someone else thinks he's tired, are all of those opinions equally valid? No! That darn dog is mad. He knows it, I know it, and if you don't know it, you're just plain wrong.

When I accidentally step on my cat's tail and she yowls with bone-chilling intensity, is there any doubt about what she's feeling? Is there any doubt what she wants me to do; or, not to do? I know what she feels, because I have those feelings, too. I know that I shouldn't do that to her, because I would not want anyone to do that to me.

By contrast, when we regard people as "other," as fundamentally different than us, we feel license to treat them badly. How do we justify war, execution, torture, discrimination? We do so by characterizing and perceiving the enemy as alien. We cast them as non-human. Whether they are alienated from us because they live in another part of town, or because of their race and ethnicity, or because of their religion, or because of their class, or because of their behavior, considering them as not like us, as different, is what justifies abusing them.

Several years ago, I interviewed 50 convicted murderers in Michigan prisons. To my surprise, one of them turned out to be a professional hit man. For purposes of anonymity, he referred to himself as "Pete." He described the crucial turning point in his career, as he progressed from his first to his second killing. The first time was difficult.

"When he [Pete], you know, hit the guy, when he shot the guy, the guy said, 'You killed me...' something like that, cause he struck him all up here. And what he said, it was just, I mean the look right in the guy's eye, you know. I mean he looked like – why me? Yeah. And he [Pete] couldn't shake that" (Levi, 293).

He said he felt bad for months after. He couldn't keep his food down; he thought about the victim at night; seeing the look on the man's face. So, when he got a second assignment, he was apprehensive.

"And when the second one [the second hit] came up [Pete] was still thinking about the first one...Yeah, when he got ready to go, he was thinking about it. Something changed. I don't know how to put it right. Up to the moment that he killed the second guy now, he waited, you know. Going through his mind was the first guy he killed. He still seeing him, still seeing the expression on his face. Soon, the second guy walked up, I mean, it was like just, his mind just blanked out for a minute. Everything just blanked out . . . Next thing he knew, he had killed the second guy . . . He knew what he was doing, but what I mean, he just didn't have nothing on his mind. Everything was wiped out" (294).

After that, Pete says, it became easy. So, what happened? Pete experienced what the sociologist Erving Goffman calls a "reframing." Basically, he conditioned himself not to see his victim's humanity. He negatively conditioned himself over a period of months. So, the second time, he did not see what gave him so much regret the first time. He did not see the expression on the man's face. All he saw, instead, was a target.

Is this transformation anyone can do? Pete doesn't think so.

"...You got to build a coldness in yourself. It's not something that comes automatically. Cause, see, I don't care who he is. First, you've got feelings" (296).

As long as Pete related to his victim as a person, like himself, he worried he couldn't do the job. But once he taught himself to "reframe" the victim as a target, then, he was able to proceed.

We do label certain people as "other." We reframe them. And this justifies a lot of mischief. But the fact is we are alike in most fundamental ways. And when eventually we come to realize that, behavior that used to be acceptable – consider lynching – now becomes abhorrent. As Theodore Parker observed in 1853, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Compassion is based on the fact that human nature, and even, to some degree, sentient nature is universal. Others have feelings, just like we do. And to the extent we have compassion for them, we treat them with consideration. This is not merely for practical reasons. It's because we see and experience a vital connection.

Is that perception just "subjective," or is it based on something real? I would argue that human nature is real. Others really are like us in some fundamental ways. So, compassion is based on an objective fact. And the Golden Rule is symmetric throughout cultures, because of that fact. Moral symmetry comes from biological symmetry.

### 3. Ethics: Empathy and Intelligence

In 1998, Daniel Goleman wrote the book "Emotional Intelligence: Why EQ is More Important than IQ." His book popularized a concept originally set forth by Wayne Pryne in his doctoral thesis "A Study of Emotion: Developing Emotional Intelligence."

According to both Goleman and Payne, emotional intelligence – or EQ – includes the perception, expression, and control of emotions; self-control; communication; and conflict-resolution. But the key feature of EQ is empathy. IQ, on the other hand, includes the ability to apply information to skills, logical reasoning, word comprehension, math skills, abstract and spacial thinking, and the ability to filter out irrelevant information.

Compared to IQ, EQ is a better indicator of success in the workplace, leadership, and teamwork.

Contrary to popular belief, however, IQ and EQ are not opposites. In fact, they overlap. In a study entitled "Correlation between emotional intelligence and IQ," Aron Barbey, Roberto Colom, and Jordan Grafman studied 152 Vietnam War veterans. Their study was conducted at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. It turned out that veterans with higher IQs also had higher EQs. IQ was measured by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, and EQ with the Mayer, Salovey, Canso Emotional Intelligence Test. Researchers observed a close correlation in results from the two tests.

The authors concluded that IQ "significantly predicted" emotional intelligence. And they noted "shared brain areas" that underlie this interdependence. The same brain regions in the frontal and parietal cortices were found to be important to both types of intelligence. In particular, two components of general intelligence that strongly contributed to emotional intelligence were verbal comprehension and processing speed.

"The frontal cortex (behind the forehead) and parietal cortex (top of the brain near the back of the skull) were important to both general and emotional intelligence. The frontal cortex is known to be involved in regulating behavior. It also processes feelings of reward and plays a role in attention, planning and memory. The parietal cortex helps integrate sensory information, and contributes to bodily coordination and language processing" (Barbey).

From this we can conclude that empathy in humans is tied to intelligence. The smarter you are, the more empathetic you're likely to be. And this connection is related to evolved areas of our brain.

### 4. Ethics: Empathy and Intelligence in Humans and Animals

Various studies have also observed empathic behavior in animals. The contrast between mammals and reptiles is especially striking. Reptiles give birth to a multitude of young by laying eggs, and, soon after, abandoning them. Turtles, for example, bury their eggs in sand, then leave. The young, when they finally hatch, must struggle on their own to escape their sandy enclosures and painstakingly make their way to the sea. Beset by predators, few arrive at their destination.

Mammals, by contrast, give birth in the womb to a small litter of offspring. And when the young are born, their parents stay with them, feed them, give them milk, and raise them until they're ready to go off on their own. This bond between parents and children is thought to form the basis of empathy. It is hard-wired in all mammal species. "Basic affective feelings and the neural mechanisms to support them are shared by all mammals" (Warneken and Tomasella, 95).

In addition to differences in parenting, however, another rather critical distinction between reptiles and mammals is the size of their brains. A crocodile's brain is about the size of a walnut. By contrast, an elephant brain is 12 pounds, and whales weigh in at 18 pounds. What's more important, however is the ratio of brain to body size. For elephants, it's 0.10 percent. For humans, on the other hand, it's 2.10 percent.

The instinctive bond between mother and child may be the prototype for empathy in all mammals. However, the development of that bond rests, to some extent, on the greater intelligence of mammals versus reptiles.

Empathy in humans, however, is more complex. Humans can intentionally "feel for" and act on behalf of other people whose experiences may differ greatly from their own (96). For example, we can be moved by pictures of starving children in Africa, or hurricane victims in North Carolina. Plus, unlike other mammals, we can process intricate emotions, such as: louche, skeptical, cantankerous, ignominious, supercilious, or even "fablungit" (Yiddish).

In his extensively documented article, "Dissecting the Neural Mechanisms Mediating Empathy," Jean Decety writes, "Humans are special in the sense that high level cognitive abilities such as executive function, language and theory of mind are layered on top of phylogenetically older social and emotional capacities" (92). He concludes, "These evolutionary newer aspects of information processing expand the range of behaviors that can be driven by empathy..." (92).

In humans empathy far surpasses its instinctual basis. We not only bond with our offspring, like other mammals, but we can have feelings for a wide range of others who share our feelings and emotions. We can also initiate these feelings on purpose, rather than passively waiting to be affected. This capacity in humans is directly related to our superior intelligence, and to areas of the brain, such as the medial and prefrontal cortices (103), which other animals mainly lack.

### 5. Ethics: Empathy and the Brain

Our large human brains contribute to empathy in two ways. First, we are born with the capacity to empathize with others. And second, most of us – but not all – have an underlying capacity to learn how to empathize through experience.

Recall the monkey with electrodes attached to his brain. When he observed an experimenter reach for a peanut, a neuron fired inside his head. It was the same neuron that would fire if he himself were doing the reaching. For that reason, neuroscientists refer to that neuron as a "mirror neuron" (Ackerman).

Experiments have yet to show particular mirror neurons in humans, but they have isolated what they call "mirror systems." These are a network of neurons in our cerebral cortex that activate when we observe others' behavior.

Different parts of the brain enable us to develop and expand our capacity to empathize with others. Consider Jack and Jill. Jill tells Jack her dog just died. Well, if Jack never owned a pet himself, he might say something awkward, like, "Are you going to buy a new one?"

Jack has nothing in his own experience that would help him understand how devastated Jill must feel. He is unable to project his own "emotional resonance" onto another person (Glazer). So, it is very helpful if we are going to put ourselves in another person's shoes, that at some time or other we wore those same shoes ourselves. Knowing how we once felt, we can grasp how they feel now.

But some people can't do that. It's a condition called "alexithymia." It means the inability to recognize your own emotions or describe them to others. And it's related to reduced activity in both the limbic system of the brain and the prefrontal cortex (Glazer). Together these are the "cognitive experiential" areas.

Our brain evolved in layers. The primitive reptile brain is overlaid by the limbic mammal brain, then overlaid by the neo-cortex of the human brain. Alexithymics show weak MRI responses in the top most cognitive layer. For them, they can't relate to others because, primarily, they can't relate to themselves.

Closely aligned with alexithymia, psychopathy is the inability to sense the emotional state of others. Some psychopaths are skilled at intuiting what other people are thinking, but not how those people feel. This condition is related to reduced gray matter in the "anterior rostral prefrontal cortex and temporal poles" (Kano). These areas, according to neuroscientists, "are important in understanding other people's emotions and intentions, and are activated when people think about moral behavior" (Glazer).

Together, both alexithymia and psychopathy point to a neurological deficiency. And this deficiency occurs in some of the most advanced areas of our brain. Those areas, therefore, must be critical. In other words, there is a clear link between empathy and human brain evolution.

### 6. Ethics: Empathy and the Subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC)

In 2016, Professor Patricia Lockwood published the findings of a study conducted at Oxford University entitled, "Neurocomputational mechanisms of prosocial learning and links to empathy." The study involved 31 participants, average age 23, having their brains scanned by an MRI machine while they performed certain tasks. One task required them to discover which button to press to bring themselves a reward. The other task involved finding the right button to reward someone else (Newman).

Dr. Lockwood discovered that a particular area of participant brains lit up when performing the second task. It was the only area of the brain to do so. This area was the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (sgACC). It did not light up when subjects were rewarding themselves. But it always lit up when the reward was for someone else. Dr. Lockwood concluded that she had pinpointed the specific area of the brain involved in empathy.

The cingulate cortex is a section near the front of the brain dealing with emotional self control. As part of the human neo-cortex, it is a recent evolutionary development (Cole). The anterior part of the cingulate cortex provides an interface between emotion and cognition (Stevens, et al). And we now know that the sgACC is specifically tasked with empathy for others.

The cingulate cortex also contains specialized, spindle-shaped neurons, known as Von Economo neurons, which widely connect diverse parts of the brain (Allman, et al). Notably these neurons are found only in humans and, to much lesser extent, in some great apes. Moreover, they only occur within the cinglate cortex and the insula.

These evolutionary brain structures enable us to fashion an equivalence between self and other. In the following sections, we will discuss how symmetry originally formed our bodies, through bi-lateralism and then bi-pedalism. But an entirely new development occurred when the principle of symmetry travelled from our bodies to our minds.

Within our brain, structures emerged to enable us to put ourselves in another person's shoes. These structures create a "vicarious symmetry" between self and other. And the result is empathy.

Inevitably, these brain structures yielded greater cooperation with other members of our species. However, it was cooperation with a very important twist. Humans aren't the only coopertive animals. The coordination that exists among ants, bees, or penguins is remarkable. But in their case, it's instinctive. They are pre-programmed to act that way.

With humans, it's a very different situation. Our brains have evolved to give us a choice. The effect of the cingulate cortex is to make us more aware of our own feelings and that of others; and to gain insight into other people's experience by equating it with our own. What we do with that knowledge, however, is up to us.

### 7. Ethics: Bi-Lateral and Bi-Pedal Symmetry

Where do our superior brains come from? Initially, I believe, from two underlying types of symmetry: bi-pedalism and bi-lateralism.

Let's start with bi-lateralism, where organisms balance their right sides with their left sides. We've come a long way from single-cell blue-green algae, some 2.2 billion years ago, or from sponges, about 640 million years ago. The next major step in evolution occurred around 560 million years ago, when the acoela, a tiny, half inch flatworm living in the ocean, developed bi-lateral symmetry. That worm was an invertebrate, but it lead to other animals with a spinal column, a brain, and nerves. All vertebrates, including us, evolved from that worm.

Others claim that the first bi-lateral creature was the "Ubilaterian." Ubi is the German word for original. However, no fossil evidence of this creature has been found. The acoela, on the other hand, appeared at the time of the "Cambrian Explosion," when the amount of oxygen built up in the atmosphere led to a sudden proliferation of life on Earth, and ushered in the Paleozoic Era.

The acoela was perhaps the first creature with two equal sides bisected by a midline. That line eventually developed into a backbone and a brain. Nerves from either side of the animal converged on the backbone, and from there they were channeled to the brain. The result was intelligence.

The next big step in evolution came when bi-lateralism led to bi-pedalism, and some animals were able to stand upright on two legs. This occurred about 4 million years ago. The most significant outcome of this development was manipulation – the ability to use hands and arms for something other than locomotion. In primates, skillful hands meant a bigger brain. "Our intelligence evolved to exploit the opportunities presented by our hands" (Quora, 11/10/14). Bi-pedalism, therefore, preceded "encephalization," the growth of brain size in proportion to body size.

Because humans are social animals, greater manipulation meant the need for greater cooperation. Whether building tools, or forming shelters, or communicating with each other, these tasks did not occur in a vacuum, but involved increased interaction with others. As a result, bi-pedalism gave rise to symmetric structures in the brain to mirror these interactions.

Bi-pedalism also enabled our ancestors to raise their heads for a wider field of vision, to wade deeper into water, and to preserve more energy. Walking on two legs is more efficient than walking on four.

But, aside from freeing our hands and arms, another contribution to human intelligence occurred in the female reproductive system. Standing upright created an "obstetric dilemma." It led to the birth canal becoming narrower at the same time as the brain was beginning to enlarge.

The evolutionary adaptation to this dilemma were the "fontanelles." These are openings in the infant skull that enable the two frontal bones of the skull to slide past each other like tectonic plates. As a result the head compresses during birth, easing its passage through the birth canal (Costandi).

In humans, the anterior fontanelle remains open the first few years of life, allowing for a "massive increase in brain size." The skull becomes completely closed by age two. In chimps and bonobos, brain growth occurs only in the womb, and the fontanelles close at the time of birth.

The human brain has increased three times its original size. This is exceptionally large relative to our body size. And the prefrontal cortex has become reorganized to occupy 85% of the brain. These changes are directly due to bipedal symmetry. This symmetry has made us smart.

In sum, since the acoela 560 million years ago (mya), a primitive brain emerged around 525 mya, which developed into the lizard brain 350 mya, then the mammal brain 250 mya, and the human brain 3.5 mya. The lizard brain consisted primarily of the brain stem, regulating homeostatic systems, to include: breathing, temperature, hunger, thirst, balance, survival, territoriality, and the reproductive drive. On top of that, the mammalian brain added the limbic system, regulating: memory, sociability, attack, anger, maternal love, anxiety, fear, hate, and jealousy. On top of that, the human brain added the neo-cortex, regulating: logic and analysis, rational thought, control of emotions, language, and – notably – morality.

Initially, the human brain was about the same size as the ape's – 600 cc. But it began tripling in area to about 1500 cc after the onset of bi-pedalism 4 mya. The ape brain stayed the same, but the human brain ballooned. One outcome of that expansion was the complex of capabilities underlying empathy.

So, to the extent we are fundamentally alike, we owe both bi-lateral symmetry and bi-pedal symmetry a debt of gratitude. But where did bi-lateral symmetry come from?

### 8. Ethics: Bi-Lateral Symmetry and Movement

Here the answer becomes rather intriguing. "Bilateral symmetry is so prevalent in the animal kingdom that many scientists think it can't be a 500 coincidence. After all, there are infinitely more ways to construct an asymmetric body than a symmetric one. Yet, fossilized evidence shows that bilateral symmetry had already taken hold in animals as early as million years ago" (Than).

Bi-lateral symmetry comes from a fundamental aspect of existence in our Universe. It comes from movement. It comes from animation. Creatures that don't move don't require it. Many of them have "radial symmetry" instead, so that they can capture whatever morsels of food, sunlight, oxygen or carbon dioxide waft their way, regardless of direction. Sponges have no symmetry at all. But when primitive life first began to free itself from dependency on its environment, and to travel freely, it encountered the laws of physics.

When an animal moves in a given direction, it is subject to the laws of gravity, motion, and, in some cases, electromagnetism. Gravity gives the animal a bottom and a top. It also imposes the need for balance. Whether at rest or in motion, the animal would topple over or veer dangerously off to one side, were it unable to have balance.

The extreme example is a high wire act, where the line of forward movement is very narrow and exacting. Any slight imbalance would be disaster. Finding the center of gravity is essential in all cases, and then creating a symmetrical balance around it.

Bi-lateral symmetry is the most aerodynamic design in the face of inertia and air resistance. For an animal facing the dual issues of fight or flight, fast movement is a necessity. An imbalanced design would make it clumsy and uncoordinated.

When our ancestors went from inanimate to animate, they adopted forward movement for efficiency. This type of movement gave them a front and a back. And having a front and back meant they also had two sides: left and right. Those two sides mirrored each other in order to facilitate and streamline movement. It enabled maximum speed plus left/right adjustments. And it allowed the two sides to balance and coordinate with each other. In fact, the only aspect of our body without bi-lateral symmetry is the distribution of our internal organs. And they don't move.

But it isn't just animals that are streamlined in this fashion. Consider airplanes, boats, cars, bicycles, all these are bi-laterally symmetrical, because that's the most efficient way for them to move through their medium.

The discussion of bi-lateralism and motion points to another fundamental element of our Universe. It's 3D. We live in a three dimensional space with length, width, and depth. With only one eye we could pretty much determine an object's length and width. But two eyes, two ears, and two nostrils are necessary to give us a stereoscopic sense of depth. Moreover, to perform that function, it requires that these sense organs be distributed evenly.

Movement through 3D space requires symmetrical senses.

### 9. Ethics: Bi-lateral Symmetry and the Brain

So, bi-lateral symmetry is related to animation. Once we became animate, we became bi-lateral. And bi-lateralism, in turn, gave us a brain. Our bi-laterally balanced worm ancestors gradually consolidated their nerve cells along a central column, the spine. The spine channeled those nerves to a main cluster, the brain. That brain was located in the forward part of the body. Why?

Fast movement requires quick senses. For that reason the eyes, ears, nose and mouth are all located at the forefront of the animal's body. This is the first part of the animal to encounter its environment, as it moves in a given direction. The brain is situated in the head, to be closest to those senses. And the backbone is located in the middle of the animal's body, in order to most quickly relay sensations from any part of the animal directly up to the brain.

The location of the backbone creates two sides of equivalent dimension. And the fact that those sides are also equivalent in function is due to the requirements of motion. Having a right and left side means that when the animal turns, the same set of adjustments can be made, whichever way it goes.

The bi-lateralism of the head is of particular interest. The balanced distribution of two eyes, two ears, and two nostrils provides both depth perception and echo location. Again, this facilitates not only ordinary motion, but also fight and flight.

Finally, the brain itself is split into two equivalent sides. And this simply mirrors the design of the bi-lateral body.

But how does all this relate to the fundamental laws of the Universe?

### 10. Ethics: Bi-Lateral Symmetry and Physics

As I've said, the Universe is lazy. It always prefers the easiest path; the most efficient solution. It likes to conserve energy. The best way to do that is described in Noether's Theorem. It has been hailed as, ". . . one of the most important mathematical theorems in guiding the development of modern physics."

Noether's Theorem equates the conservation of energy with symmetry. It states that for every symmetry, there is a corresponding law of conservation. Some of the major symmetries include: space, time, mass, and all the subatomic interactions of the Standard Model.

Space symmetry is associated with Newton's first law of motion, and the conserved energy is angular momentum. Time symmetry is associated with the first law of thermodynamics, and the conserved factor is the sum total of energy in a closed system. Mass symmetry is associated with the law of gravity, and the conserved factor is gravitational energy.

The symmetry of subatomic interactions – which are described in the Standard Model – is associated with Quantum Mechanics, and the conserved factors are the fundamental subatomic energies: electric charge, spin, mass, magnetism, the strong force, and the weak force. It has been said that, "In Quantum Mechanics, symmetry is of primary importance."

Time symmetry refers to time uniformity. "If one moment of time were peculiarly different from any other moment, identical physical phenomena, occurring at different moments would require different amounts of energy, so that energy would not be conserved" (Encyclopedia Britannica). Time symmetry gives us a good example of why symmetry is important.

Mass symmetry refers to mass uniformity. According to Newton, both mass and distance determine the force of gravity. So, if mass stays the same, gravitational energy is conserved. Indeed, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "The law of gravity shows that conservation of energy is the basis of equilibrium."

In other words, we have equilibrium in order to conserve energy. The law of gravity requires it. This is how Noether's Theorem applies to bi-lateral symmetry. The equivalence of mass on either side of our bodies conserves gravitational energy.

Bi-lateral symmetry conserves both gravitational energy and energy of motion. It conserves energy both when we're standing still, and especially when we move.

### 11. Ethics: Bi-Lateral Symmetry and the Golden Rule

The Golden Rule means: we don't do good to go to Heaven, or to make money, or to become famous. We don't do it because it's our duty or obligation. We don't do it to avoid punishment. Nor do we do good to feel good. We do it because we feel what the other feels, and we want to make them feel better.

But where does the Golden Rule come from? My answer: it's hard-wired into the Universe. Here are the connections:

a. The symmetries of gravity and the Standard Model.

b. Bi-lateral symmetry.

c. Bi-pedal symmetry.

d. Complex social cooperation.

e. The subgenual anterior cingulate cortex.

f. Empathy.

g. The Golden Rule.

h. Choice.

_Physical_ symmetry (gravity, the Standard Model, bi-lateralism, bi-pedalism) led to _social_ symmetry (complex social cooperation) which led to _mental_ symmetry (the sgACC, empathy) which led to the _moral_ symmetry of the GR, and to choice.

The principle of Noether's Theorem directs the flow of evolution. Symmetry conserves energy and enhances efficiency. As we progressed from the Standard Model to bi-lateralism to bi-pedalism to the sgACC to empathy to the GR, each stage is a refinement of that principle. We internalized that principle with the growth of our brain and the emergence of specialized cerebral areas, such as the sgACC, making us aware of the equivalence between ourselves and others. That awareness did not force us to choose good over evil. But, like eating from the Tree of Knowledge, it made us know the difference, and thereby rendered us responsible for our choices.

That is the scientific derivation of good and evil.

### 12. Ethics: Moral Symmetry and Social Cooperation

In the 1600s the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes developed the theory of the Social Contract. People get along with each other, he wrote, in order to make social interaction possible. In effect, we care for people for pragmatic reasons; because otherwise cooperation would be hard.

This raises the question: is goodness a means to an end, or is it an end in itself? Is the Golden Rule a kind of contract? Or is it an expression of human empathy?

According to Social Contract theory, we have evolved as social animals, depending on cooperation and strong relationships in order to adapt and survive. That is how our species succeeded as hunter gatherers, and later as farmers, and later as entrepreneurs.

It turns out that social animals have a surprising degree of intelligence. For example, cows in cliques are smarter than cows by themselves. And we are familiar with the cunning of wolf packs, and the cleverness of dolphins.

Social animals are also more likely to display empathy for each other. In one rather incredible experiment, a rhesus monkey had to pull a chain to get food. But every time the chain was pulled, a second monkey in an adjacent cage got a shock So, once the first monkey figured out what was happening, he stopped pulling the chain. He refrained for twelve days, bringing him to the point of starvation. He did this to protect the other monkey from shock.

That is a striking example of caring in a social animal. But why did he do it? Was it because of a social contract? Or was it done out of compassion? Was it because the first monkey expected something in return? Or was it because he wanted to spare the other pain?

Clearly, monkey no.1 was not expecting anything in return. Indeed, he almost died protecting his mate. But this raises a larger issue of causality:

a. intelligence causes empathy causes social cooperation  
b. social cooperation causes intelligence causes empathy

To some extent, both versions of causality are true. But case "a" is necessary. Case "b" is not. That is, social cooperation requires empathy, and empathy requires intelligence. You need to have some understanding of other people's needs in order to interact with them. You need to have some degree of intelligence in order to have that understanding.

We already know for a fact that intelligence is a direct result of bi-pedalism. Bi-pedalism led to a tripling of the size of the human brain. Social cooperation may have magnified intelligence, but it is not the primary cause. Intelligence does not require social cooperation, although it helps.

Social interaction presupposes a certain amount of identification with the other person's point of view. As Stanford Handel asks, "How can we be expected to treat others with dignity and respect if we can't put ourselves in their shoes?" This comes from his article, "The Role of Empathy in our Evolution."

And Beaumont further underscores how "empathy creates mutual relationships where each action benefits everyone in the relationship." In other words, empathy is a prerequisite for sociability, rather than the other way around. Having empathy, he writes, leads to apology, dialogue, and respect. Self absorption, on the other hand, leads to the opposite. "The fundamental asymmetry of the first person viewpoint contributes to humiliation, envy, jealousy, and unrequited love." It also leads to other "asymmetries," such as "egoism, narcissism, selfishness, and greed."

In "Examining Empathy," Leslie Jamison describes empathy as a kind of gut reaction: "Another person's pain registers as an experience in the perceiver: empathy as forced symmetry, a bodily echo..." She goes on to state, "When we appreciate another's situation and point of view, we recognize the similarities we share as humans."

I have been arguing that intelligence underlies empathy. To some extent, this contradicts Hobbes' Social Contract theory. He argues we are kind to each other for purely practical reasons. We go along to get along. To the contrary, I am contending that empathy comes primarily from intelligence and the perception that, at a basic level, we are very much alike.

### 13. Ethics: Moral Symmetry and Immoral Acts

In arguing that the Golden Rule is the gold standard for judging good and evil, it may seem that I have created a new sort of moral relativism. On the one hand, the GR is universal, and it defines what's moral and what is not. But on the other hand, it rests on the phrase "as you would have others do unto you." Well, what if there's wide variation about what we would have others do unto us? What if it differs from person to person, culture to culture, religion to religion?

There are two answers to this question. First, if the GR is a universal standard, it doesn't matter what the specific acts are. All that matters is that in any culture or any religion, you can use the GR as a valid, empirical measuring stick to determine good and evil.

Second, there is, I believe, considerable agreement across individuals and cultures about what we would have others do, or especially not do unto us. How many people actually want to be murdered, to be tortured, to be injured, to be raped, to be cheated, to be robbed, to be abused? In how many nations across the world do the citizenry actually value such experiences? Can you name one where being robbed is a highly sought after event?

At least among the most serious offenses, there is, I believe, universal agreement about what we don't want to happen to us. And this relates back to the fact of our equality as a species. We are so alike in terms of our biology, our senses, our emotions, our appetites and our needs that we share very similar desires and aversions.

So, in terms of moral symmetry, there is a direct connection between our biological symmetry as a species and the symmetry - the sameness - of the actual behaviors we consider good and evil. Put another way, if our biologies were very different, then our morals would be quite different, too.

But, some might argue, there are ethical differences. Orthodox Jews consider eating pork a sin. Most others don't. Conservative Mormons favor multiple wives. But in America, that's illegal. In Kenya and Uganda, homosexual behavior is punishable by death. In the United States, gay people can get married. And the examples go on and on. Certainly, the moral relativists would argue, morality has no objective standard. It's all subjective.

Here is my response:

1) Many of the behaviors listed above fall under the category of "crimes without victims" (Schur, 1965). Over time, there is tendency for them to expire. Consider what happened to prohibition in the 1920s, or to the marijuana laws today. On the other hand, crimes with victims eventually get treated with the seriousness they deserve. Consider lynching in the U.S., or rape in India. So, this may be a case of the long "moral arc of the universe" coming home to roost.

2) It seems odd to call someone "evil" who smokes marijuana, or who consumes shellfish. But that designation seems entirely appropriate for someone who tortures small animals, or who keeps slaves.

3) While it's undeniable that there is considerable variation in moral codes among peoples, there is still a core of serious behaviors that are reprehensible to just about everyone. So, if moral relativism does exist to some degree, moral absolutism does too. And these latter behaviors tend to be the most egregious.

4) As stated before, even in cases where people differ about the specific acts in question, the standard of the Golden Rule still applies. And that standard is the basis for moral symmetry.

### 14. Ethics: Pain and Suffering

I have written that evil causes pain and suffering, and that goodness alleviates it. This seems like a pretty straight-forward explanation. So, why not use it as our definition for good and evil? Why engage in such a long, convoluted exposition on symmetry?

The reason is three-fold: 1) because of extenuating circumstances; 2) because of the question, "Why;" and 3) because of derivation.

Before going into detail, let's take a closer look at what we mean by pain and suffering. According to the medical dictionary, pain is ". . . a state of physical emotional, or mental lack of well being or physical, emotional uneasiness that ranges from mild discomfort or dull distress to acute, often unbearable agony, may be generalized or localized, and is a consequence of being injured or hurt physically or mentally, or of some derangement of or lack of equilibrium in the physical or mental functions (as through disease), and that usually produces a reaction of wanting to avoid, escape, or destroy the causative factor and its effects" (Merriam-Webster).

This is a pretty thorough definition. In defining pain, it ranges from mild to agonizing; from physical to emotional to mental; and from local to general. This would cover the gamut of pain, from distress about a tight-fitting dress to dying in torment. So, why do we need more?

1. Extenuating circumstances. If pain and suffering were all we needed to explain good and evil, then: dentists would be evil; cross mothers would be evil; demanding teachers would be evil; drug dealers would be good; pornographers would be good; and prostitutes would be angels incarnate.

The law recognizes several extenuating circumstances for bad acts. These range from outright justifications to valid excuses to mitigating circumstances. A justification is an acceptable reason for doing something; for example, self-defense, defense of property, preventing a greater harm, or a mistake (LegalMatch).

An excuse, on the other hand, would be a reason that doesn't mitigate the wrongfulness of the act, but does forgive the defendant; for example, duress or coercion, involuntary intoxication, legal insanity, or infancy (below 13 or 14 years of age).

Finally, mitigating circumstances do not justify or excuse an offense but may reduce the severity of a charge; for example, voluntary intoxication, diminished mental capacity, or heat of passion.

Clearly, pain and suffering, per se, are not sufficient to delineate good and evil. Both legally and conventionally, the world contains lots and lots of pleasure and pain that have nothing to do with good and evil.

2. The question, "Why." Even if we were to accept pain and suffering as definitions for good and evil, that pronouncement would be arbitrary. After all, it's one thing to say you love pleasure and you hate pain. But it's altogether a different story to claim that just because you love or hate something, that makes it morally right or wrong.

Certain people, like psychopathic killers, think murder is fun. They love it. They don't think it's bad. Many of us hate painful flu shots, but that doesn't mean they're evil. Cigarette manufacturers enjoy the ample salaries they get for providing a service to the public. They think they're doing good. Why are they mistaken?

They are mistaken because of symmetry. We humans are alike in terms of our general intellect, our senses, feelings, and emotions. As sovereign beings, we have equivalent needs and desires. But asymmetry is a condition of imbalance, where one person profits at another's expense, without compensation. Symmetry, on the other hand is when both parties are equally compensated. The result is a kind of moral scale.

For example, an employer definitely profits at the expense of his workers. But they are compensated in the form of wages and other benefits. Slaves, however, receive little or no compensation. So, the moral scale weighs heavily against them. Or, to take another example, hand shakers are equally gratified by each other's gesture. But if one party goes to shake hands and the other declines, then, again, the scales are unbalanced. In the case of murder, of course, the imbalance is absolute.

So, pleasure and pain, per se, do not define right and wrong. They do so only as a consequence of an imbalance in the scales of justice, or the scales of fairness. And there's no compensation for it.

3. Derivation. How has morality come to be based on symmetry? Where does that come from? The most fundamental picture of the Universe we have today is called the "Standard Model." In physics, the Standard Model is represented as "U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3)." Each factor in the equation represents the interaction between matter and force particles. So, U(1) is electromagnetism, with electrons and photons; SU(2) is the weak force, with electrons, neutrinos, and the "weak gauge bosons" (Z, W+ and W- ); SU(3) is the strong force, with quarks and gluons.

Each of the factors listed above is referred to as a "symmetry group." This means they act exactly the same way, wherever or whenever they occur, regardless of the circumstances. They are "invariant to transformation."

Most physicists today believe that the three separate symmetry groups can be traced to a single, overarching group, "SU(5)." That is the vision of the "Grand Unification Theory," or GUT. They haven't proved it yet, but they are very close. When that happens, all three symmetries will be combined in one. That is, one all-encompassing force that acts the same way in every circumstance. In the meantime, we can definitely state the Universe is symmetric. It is governed by three symmetric forces, and, most likely, by one.

Gravity, the fourth force of nature is also symmetric. "Charge and spin conservation is a manifestation of symmetry conservation in the particle domain. Inertial and gravitational forces are evidence of symmetry conservation in the spacetime domain" (Gowan).

Noether's Theorem tells us that for every symmetry, there is a corresponding type of energy conservation. Symmetries create the "easiest path." And when it comes to motion, bi-lateral symmetry is the most efficient adaptation to the symmetries of gravity and the Standard Model.

Bi-lateralism, in turn, set the stage for the more energy efficient bi-pedalism, with two legs evolving from four. Bi-pedalism led to a tripling in the size of our brains. The resulting "encephalization" made us human. And part of what it means to be human is to be fully conscious not only of ourselves, but of others like us. Being conscious also means we have the freedom to decide how we want to live our lives. No other animal has this capability. But we do.

Empathy is a form of perceptive symmetry, in which we draw an equivalence between ourselves and others. Then, we have the choice to treat them as equals, or not.

That is the derivation of good and evil. It's not just about pain and suffering. It's about the very nature of the Universe, and how, over time, the principle of equality has inexorably worked its way through all the stages of evolution to produce a species capable of - not only understanding that principle - but also acting on it.

# EVIL

Up till now, we have been discussing morality in the abstract. But what does it look like in real life? Is it obvious? Do we know it when we see it? Can it be observed and measured? Or is it ambiguous and open to interpretation? Beyond that, do we see symmetry and asymmetry? Do we see empathy or the lack of it? Do we see the Golden Rule, or its violation?

In other words, do specific cases support the theory of moral symmetry? The next sections will present profiles in evil, in order to address this question.

_Psychopaths_

#### 1. Psychopathic Killers

Following is a list of psychopathic killers from the web site "healthyplace.com."

"1. John Wayne Gacy. This famous psychopath used to put on a clown suit and makeup to entertain at children's parties earning him the nickname of "Killer Clown." Gacy sexually assaulted and murdered 33 teenage boys and young men between 1972 and 1978 in Chicago Illinois. Gacy said this of his victims, They were just a bunch of worthless little queers and punks."

2. Joel Rifkin. Joel Rifkin was a famous psychopathic killer that was convicted of nine murders although likely committed 17. He would dismember the bodies for easy disposal. Rifkin had this to say about his situation, "I will in all probability be convicted, but I will not go away as a monster, but as a tragedy."

3. Gary Ridgeway. Even of the most famous psychopaths, Gary Ridgeway's tally of dead bodies is strikingly high as he pled guilty to 48 charges of murder although bragged that he actually killed 71. Ridgeway was known as the Green River Killer and he has the distinction of being the most prolific serial killer in history based on the number of people that have been confirmed as killed by him. When asked why, he said, "I don't believe in man, God, nor Devil. I hate the whole damned human race, including myself . . . I preyed upon the weak, the harmless, and the unsuspecting. This lesson I was taught by others: Might makes right."

4. Richard Ramirez. Richard Ramirez was known as the "Night Stalker" by news media as his home invasion crime spree terrorized people in Los Angeles and then later in San Francisco from June 1984 until August 1985. He admitted to killing 20 people and said to the deputy sheriff after his capture, "I love to kill people. I love watching them die. I would shoot them in the head and they would wiggle and squirm all over the place, and then just stop. Or I would cut them with a knife and watch their faces turn real white. I love all that blood. I told one lady to give me all her money. She said no. So I cut her and pulled her eyes out."

5. Albert DeSalvo. Dubbed the "Boston Strangler," this famous psychopath confessed to the murder of 13 women, however was only imprisoned for additional rapes and robberies as there was no physical evidence tying him to the murders. Albert DeSalvo said of the murders, 'It wasn't as dark and scary as it sounds. I had a lot of fun . . . Killing somebody's a funny experience.'"

### 2. Additional Cases

The previous section provided thumbnail sketches of psychopathic killers from the website "Healthyplace.com." Here are a few additional cases in somewhat greater detail (Nash).

1. Charles Manson. Manson was born in 1934 to a 16 year old, unmarried mother. But in 1939 she was arrested for robbery, and Charles was sent to live with an aunt and uncle. Released from prison after five years, she returned to find her son skipping school and committing a series of thefts. So, at age 13, he was sent off to Gilbault School for Boys, a reformatory. After 10 months, he managed to escape, and headed directly back home. But when he arrived, his mother closed the door on him and sent him back to lockup.

Thus began a life of incarceration, periodically interrupted by temporary release, during which he committed crimes escalating to burglary, assault, rape, car theft, pimping, and armed robbery. In reform school, he was given a psychiatric test at age 16. It found "rejection, instability, and psychic trauma." They said he was constantly struggling to impress other boys because of a "lack of parental love."

In 1967, he begged to stay in Terminal Prison, because he said he was incapable of living outside. They let him out anyway.

The 32 year old, 5 foot, 2 inch tall Manson had already spent half his life incarcerated. It was the late 60s, a time of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It was also a period of religious cults. Manson started a "family," with a number of female and male "flower children," into free love and LSD.

As the head of this pseudo cult, Manson fashioned himself as "Man Son," that is, another Christ. He ranted about "Helter Skelter," a revolution he wanted to start, pitting whites against blacks. He preached that he had been sent to wreak "divine havoc" upon the Earth, which had allowed blacks to co-mingle with whites. His idea was to murder high profile white people, and make it look like blacks had done it.

Following through on his vision, in 1969, he sent four of his cult followers to the home of coffee heiress Abigail Folger. Manson instructed them to murder everyone in the house and, "Make it as gruesome as possible." In all, seven people were slaughtered, including actress Sharon Tate. She was pregnant and knifed 16 times. When she pled for the life of her child, cult follower Susan Atkins chided, "Woman, I have no mercy for you."

As a sequel to these seven horrific murders, the cultists were next sent to the home of Rosemary and Leno LaBianca, a wealthy couple who were selected randomly. Their murder brought the total to nine.

Manson and his followers were soon caught and convicted. He was sentenced to life, and died in prison at the age of 83 in 2017.

2. Ted Bundy. Bundy was convicted of murdering several young women in the 1970s. He actually confessed to killing 30. Biographer Ann Rule describes him as, "A sadistic sociopath who took pleasure from another person's pain and the control he had over his victims."

Like Manson, Bundy was born to an unwed mother. He displayed an early streak of sadism. His younger sister Julia once awoke from a nap and found herself surrounded by a set of kitchen knives and Ted smiling. At 23, he discovered that his older sister was actually his real mother.

To a counselor, he stated that he was, "unable to understand interpersonal relationships." Before the murders which resulted in his second imprisonment, he had committed a series of crimes, including kidnapping, rape, burglary auto theft, and necrophilia. He had cut off the heads of 12 of his victims and kept them as souvenirs. Called by one of his lawyers, "the very definition of heartless evil," Bundy was executed in Florida at the age of 42.

3. Mark David Chapman. Mark Chapman made himself famous by murdering John Lennon in 1980. Born in Fort Worth, Texas, he ran away from home at age 14 because of an abusive father. He subsequently was jailed for armed robbery, kidnapping, and drug possession. He attempted suicide in 1977. Later, he became a security guard with the name tag "John Lennon." Ultimately arrested for murder, he told police, "I have a small part in me that cannot understand the world and what goes on in it. I did not want to kill anybody, and I really don't know why I did..." (16).

4. Henry Lee Lucas. Lucas was born to an unmarried mother. She was a prostitute and sometimes forced him to watch her have sex with clients. In 1960, he killed his mother by stabbing her in the neck, because she objected to his upcoming marriage to a 16 year old girl. He was sentenced to prison for 20-40 years, but was released only 15 years later. At the time he pleaded with officials not to let him out. He knew he was going to kill again. They released him anyway.

Ultimately, he was sentenced to death in Michigan for the slaying of a young girl, but convicted of murdering ten others. He confessed that his killing began at age 14, when he strangled a woman who refused sex. Since then, he boasted to have murdered 300 people altogether. Sometimes, he claimed, he dismembered his victims while still alive, or filleted them. He died in prison of a heart attack at age 64.

5. Perry Smith. In 1966, the celebrated author Truman Capote wrote "In Cold Blood," detailing the real life killing of a wealthy farm family in Holcomb, Kansas. The murderers were Richard Hickock and Perry Smith.

While in prison, Richard's cellmate told him about a wealthy farmer who kept all his money in a home safe. So, when he and Perry got out, that's where they headed.

Smith had a distressing childhood, with an alcoholic mother, a father who refused to send him to school, and two siblings who committed suicide. Because the dad beat his mother, Perry was sent to a series of orphanages and Salvation Army homes. He grew up to become a thief and a burglar.

At the Clutter home, Smith did most of the killing. As he later told Capote, "I didn't want to harm the man. I thought he was a very nice gentleman. Soft spoken. I thought so right up to the moment I cut his his throat" (244).

6. Other Forms of Cruelty. Psychopaths aren't always killers. In their youth, their pathology is often manifested by the torture of small animals. For example:

"On Monday afternoon, a third shepherd puppy was found tortured and dumped in a trash pile in Oakland. Just two days before, two abandoned and badly injured puppies were found in the same pile of trash. One of the four-month-old German shepherd puppies was missing a paw, and the other pup's face and mouth was so mangled, she has not be [sic] able to eat... It is feared a serial animal torturer could be inflicting these egregious injuries to the puppies" ("Third abandoned and tortured puppy found in Oakland trash pile," Pet Rescue Report, 5/29/2018).

Psychopaths also find other ways, besides murder and torture, to devastate their victims. Stock broker Bernard Madoff was convicted in 2008 of running the world's largest ponzi scheme. Basically, he defrauded some 4800 investors of 65 billion dollars. Madoff was sentenced to 170 years in prison, and his son committed suicide.

Matthew 16:26, "For what shall it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, yet loses his soul?"

### 3. Analysis

One sunny day in a tropical resort, I found myself standing at the end of a pier watching four three-year-olds having the time of their lives. They were giggling and laughing and jumping up and down in delight. When I looked closer, I found what was amusing them. There in the middle of the small group were some fish that had just been caught and laid out on the wooden pier. The fish were flopping around, squirming and struggling and gasping for air. The children thought this was a massively entertaining spectacle. At their age they were too young to realize the ultimate horror this was for the fish that were expending their last measure of energy in a desperate but fruitless resistance to death.

In reviewing some of the cases of psychopathic killers listed above, I was reminded of that scene with the fish. The killers were having fun! They were amused by their victim's struggles. As Richard Ramirez says, "I love to kill people. I love watching them die." He enjoyed seeing them "wiggle and squirm all over the place." Albert DeSalvo agrees, "I had a lot of fun." Ted Bundy adds, "I took pleasure from another person's pain."

Closely aligned with the sense of fun is the de-humanization they felt for their victims. As Leslie Atkins chided, "Woman, I have no mercy for you." Or, as John Wayne Gacy declared, the boys he killed were "just a bunch of worthless little queers and punks."

In his plays, William Shakespeare, that most astute observer of human nature, gives us insight into the face of evil. In "Othello" the treacherous and scheming character Iago "presents us with the spectacle of one man systematically destroying another, and for no apparent reason" (Rawls, 93). In "Richard III," the main character is filled with an unquenchable hatred and resentment. Of himself, he declares, "No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none and therefore am no beast." In "MacBeth," even though the main characters commit the murders, the real soul of evil resides in the three witches. They stand around their cauldron, cackling, prognosticating, and stirring up mischief. They appear to be having fun, for no other reason than to screw up the lives of contemptible and gullible humans. "Double, double, toil and trouble."

Commenting on the Shakespearian villains, John Rawls notes, "Evil is pure perversity." He adds, "What makes the evil man is the love of injustice" (94).

Echoing this sentiment, St. Augustine tells us about his own wayward childhood in "Confessions." His great "sin" was stealing fruit from an orchard. He recounts, "[I] took pleasure in the very sin and theft itself. . . I was wicked to no purpose, and there was no cause of this, my malice, but malice itself. It [the fruit] was deformed, and yet I loved it; . . . . I loved the sin, not that which I obtained by the same; I loved the sin itself . . . not desiring any profit from my shame, but only thirsting after shame itself" (61-62).

St. Augustine's "sin" was forgivable, but he captures the spirit of the evil mind. While on the surface, it might appear he stole the fruit to eat it, the real reason was all out of proportion to the reward. As Freud explains, the purposes of evil are " . . . always pointlessly and sadistically in excess of the practical ends to which we harness it" (78).

In his book "Evil," Tony Eagleton echoes Freud. "Calling the action evil meant that it was beyond comprehension. Evil is unintelligible. It is just a thing in itself like boarding a crowded commuter train, wearing only a giant boa constrictor" (2). He goes on to observe, "Here, then, we arrive at an insight which seems central to the idea of evil. It has, or appears to have, no practical purpose. Evil is supremely pointless" (84).

In his essay "Beyond the Pleasure Principle," Freud references the "death drive," the opposite of "Eros." It is "an urge in organic life to restore an earlier stage of things." It is an instinct of destruction directed against the external world (24). So, we have two warring impulses driving our behavior: Eros and the destructive instinct, or Thanatos.

Other psychiatrists draw a distinction between sociopaths and psychopaths. All psychopaths are sociopaths, but not vice versa. In particular, psychopaths display a lack of guilt or remorse; a lack of empathy; a lack of deep emotional attachments; narcissism; and "superficial charm."

All of these traits are easily recognizable in the psychopathic killers outlined above. In addition to the outrageous perversity of their behavior, a pronounced narcissism, and lack of remorse are clearly in evidence. Perhaps the traumatic experiences of their childhoods caused them to retreat into a defensive crouch. So that, the only pity they can muster is for themselves.

Primarily, however, the overriding strain is a lack of empathy. The more their concern is for themselves exclusively, the less their concern is for others. This would also account for their inability to forge meaningful social relationships. The resulting lack of empathy means their relations are "asymmetric," not symmetric. In a most spectacular manner, they violate the Golden Rule.

Some have claimed that psychopaths must empathize with their victim's emotions, because their pleasure comes from watching the victim suffer. Doesn't that mean they can feel what the victim feels? Neuroscientists, however, draw a distinction between empathy and "theory of mind" (Glazer). If you lack empathy, you do not feel the other person's emotions. But you can intellectually understand them. In the theory of mind, on the other hand, lacking this facility, you cannot comprehend or verbally describe the other person's emotions. One is a visceral defect; the other is cognitive. Psychopaths lack empathy, but they do have understanding. They do comprehend what the victim is going through, but they don't feel it. After all, why would anyone enjoy an activity where they themselves experienced pain and terror?

In the case studies outlined above, we see other similarities. Most of them come from broken families, abusive childhoods, early criminal behavior, being sent away to foster homes, reformatories, prisons. No doubt, all of these experiences helped to form them into the monsters they became. But many others have gone through similar traumas, and come out of them unscathed. There is something special about the psychopaths listed here. Bad experiences may have made them worse, but perhaps they were born that way to begin with.

### 4. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist

In the 1970s Canadian psychologist Robert Hare developed a 20 question checklist for diagnosing psychopathy. It was later revised in the 1990s (PCL-R). Each question is scored "0" (not at all), "1" (somewhat), or "2" (definitely). Adding up the total score for all 20 questions, most people just get a 2. That's if you are normal. But if the score totals 30 or over, you're probably a psychopath. Here is the test:

1. Do you have "excess glibness" or "superficial charm"?  
2. Do you have a grandiose sense of self worth?  
3. Do you have an excess need for stimulation?  
4. Are you a pathological liar?  
5. Are you conning or manipulative?  
6. Do you display a lack of remorse or guilt?  
7. Do you have "shallow affect"?  
8. Are you callous or do you lack empathy?  
9. Do you have a "parasitic" lifestyle?  
10. Do you have poor behavioral controls?  
11. Do you have a history of promiscuous behavior?  
12. Do you have a history of early behavioral problems?  
13. Do you lack realistic long term goals?  
14. Are you overly impulsive?  
15. Do you have a high level of irresponsibility?  
16. Do you fail to accept responsibility for your own actions?  
17. Have you had many short term "marital" relationships?  
18. Do you have a history of juvenile delinquency?  
19. Have you ever experienced a "revocation of conditional release"?  
20. Do you display "criminal versatility"?

This checklist is widely used in the psychiatric community. In particular, questions 6, 7, and 8 all go to the question of empathy and the ability to feel others' pain.

The Hare test provides us with an objective and empirical way to recognize and define psychopathy. In that sense, it is morally "absolute." It is not relative. The question of whether or not someone is a psychopath is not just an opinion. It's not merely a question of one person's belief being just as valid as another's. The evil of the individuals outlined in this section is clear and obvious, and, if that weren't enough, it's a measurable fact.

## Non-Psychopaths

#### 1. The Banality of Evil

In 1961, the American philosopher Hannah Arendt travelled to Jerusalem to view the trial of Adolph Eichmann. She was sent there as a reporter for the "New Yorker" magazine. Eichmann had been a Lieutenant Colonel in the Nazi SS, during World War II. And he was one of the principal architects of the Holocaust. It was his job to manage the mass deportation of Jews to death camps. After the war, he fled to Argentina, but was captured by the Israeli Mossad in 1960. He was tried and hanged for war crimes.

Arendt went into the trial preparing to see a raving monster. She was expecting to encounter a Satanic figure like Richard III or Iago. Instead, she found Eichmann to be altogether ordinary, plodding, and pedestrian.

"I was struck by a manifest shallowness in the doer that made it impossible to trace the uncontestable evil of his deeds to any deeper level of roots or motives. The deeds were monstrous, but the doer . . . was quite ordinary, commonplace, and neither demonic nor monstrous. There was no sign in him of firm ideological convictions or specific evil motives, and the only notable characteristic one could detect . . . was something entirely negative: it was not stupidity but thoughtlessness" (321).

Being thoughtless is something different from the inability to distinguish right from wrong. Nor is it stupidity or rudeness. But rather, it is just the absence of thought.

The act of thinking about something involves withdrawal from the world. For that reason, it entails a certain independence of mind. Socrates is said to have stood stock still, just thinking, for 24 hours straight (322).

During the Nazi reign, there were many Eichmanns. These were people who were just following orders, just conforming to mob opinion. In the Holocaust, "One of the most grotesque features of the Nazi death camps was the way in which sober, meticulous, utilitarian measures were pressed into the service of an operation which had no practical point at all" (97).

What this says is that seemingly ordinary – non-psychopathic – people can commit horrendous crimes. The actions are evil, and while they did those actions the actors were evil, too. Thoughtlessness is not an excuse. In this case, the "doer" is defined by the deed.

### 2. Situational Evil

Thoughtlessness also played an important part in the famous Milgram experiment. Conducted right after World War II, test subjects were, in effect, put in an analogous position to Nazi soldiers. They were told to follow orders. And they did. Specifically, they were told to press a button and deliver an electric shock to other (phony) test subjects separated from view by a partition. The shocks were to be administered whenever the supposed recipients of those shocks answered a question incorrectly. The more the recipient answered incorrectly, the higher the shock the subjects were ordered to administer. The astonishing fact is that most people, 65 per cent of them, progressed to maximum voltage. Even though their hapless victims screamed in agony as the shock levels increased, still most people obeyed.

Why? Well, they were told by lab-coated technicians standing nearby not to question orders; not to think about it; not to reflect on it; just obey. And it turns out the main reason most people did obey is because they could not put into words any reason for not doing so. They couldn't formulate an objection. Words failed them. Lacking the words and the ability to conceptualize their situations, they also mitigated the ability to feel.

A similar study was conducted by Phillip Zimbardo in 1971. He taught social-psychology at Stanford University. For his study he enlisted 21 students, and paid them $15 a day for a two week experiment. The study involved a simulated prison.

A mock prison was set up in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford. Ten students played prisoners, and eleven students played guards. The prisoners were divided into three "cells," and were required to remain on site for the full two weeks. The guards were allowed to go home each day after an eight hour shift. Zimbardo screened the participants beforehand for mental problems, or a history of criminal or violent behavior. He also instructed the volunteers not to harm or abuse each other.

As time went on, what happened was the guards became more cruel and abusive, while the prisoners got more passive and obedient. The guards stuck together as a unit. But the prisoners divided against each other, some becoming snitches.

One of the "guards" noted in his diary, "The new prisoner refuses to eat his sausage . . . We throw him into the Hole, ordering him to hold sausages in each hand . . . I am very angry at this prisoner for causing discomfort and trouble for the others. I decided to force-feed him, but he wouldn't eat. I let the food slide down his face. I didn't believe it was me doing it. I hated myself for making him eat but I hated him more for not eating" (Zimbardo, 1975, pp. 48-49).

Zimbardo concluded that perfectly normal people can be induced to commit evil behavior by the situation they're in. Once the stage was set, and the roles of prisoner and guard were defined, the volunteers acted accordingly. The situation, Zimbardo wrote, defined behaviors, cognitions, and emotions.

## Types of Evil

#### 1. Psychopathic, Situational, and Categorical

Lobster was a delicacy in my family about once a year when I was growing up. Cooking involved placing the still live lobster in a pot of already boiling water; in other words, boiling it alive. Even as a child this struck me as not quite right. When asked, my mother reassured me that lobsters don't have feelings. So, there was nothing cruel about what we were doing. And I was willing to believe her because, after all, lobsters are delicious. However, I have since learned that lobsters may, in fact, have feelings. For example, they will move away from a source of heat. The evidence was compelling enough for Switzerland to legally ban the practice of boiling lobsters alive.

In retrospect, lobster boiling seems to be another example of what Hannah Arendt calls "thoughtlessness." That's when we do things because everyone else does it, or because someone tells us to. So, we mindlessly go along. We see the result in both the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments. But the lobster example seems different, because it transcends a discrete set of behaviors in a limited situation.

We might, therefore, classify types of evil under three headings: psychopathic, situational, and categorical. Psychopathic evil is a personality disorder. Some people are just plain bad. Possibly, they were born that way. At the other extreme, situational evil arises when usually normal individuals find themselves in particular situations where they are constrained to do things which they would not do otherwise. Examples include: college experiments, frat parties, political rallies, mobs. Often, in these situations, drugs or alcohol are involved.

But the lobster example is something different. It illustrates what happens when you classify a whole category of beings as "non-human." As a result, you don't credit them with intelligence, feelings, or emotions. The most notable example was the attitude toward black slaves in the antebellum South. But it also includes attitudes towards Jews in Germany, towards Chinese under British colonialism, toward "witches" in Salem, towards gay people in much of the world, towards Communists under McCarthyism.

In each of these examples, the actor feels licensed to mistreat his victim, because the victim is not "like us," is not "one of us," is alien, is "an animal," is not a sentient being. The reason for that attitude boils down to a kind of thoughtlessness. And the people who harbor those attitudes are less often raving monsters, but rather banal – like you and me.

But that doesn't make them any less culpable. The acts they commit are hurtful, vile, and often atrocious. And that's what they come to realize, with more familiarity, less estrangement, less thoughtlessness, and less downright ignorance.

The classic case here is John Newton (1725-1807). In his early years he worked as a slave trader, subsequently becoming captain of a vessel transporting slaves from Africa to North America. At the age of 30, however, he left that trade and underwent a religious conversion. He became an Anglican minister and ardent abolitionist, whose work ultimately helped produce the Slave Trade Act of 1807, ending slavery in the British Empire. He is mainly remembered today as author of the hymn "Amazing Grace":

"Amazing grace, how sweet the sound,  
That saved a wretch like me.  
I once was lost, but now I'm found,  
Was blind, but now I see."

In his youth Newton was "blind" to the evil of slavery, and simply accepted it, like most of his fellow countrymen, as a fact of life. But he came to perceive a fundamental truth about what he had been doing, and that perception transformed his views about the institution of slavery and about himself.

It's obvious to us today that slavery is wrong and that human beings are not to be bought and sold, like commodities. Today, we probably think those facts are self-evident. But that was not the case in John Newton's time, when most people assumed the opposite. It took individuals of rare perception to see things differently.

Unlike psychopathic evil, categorical evil and situational evil are usually committed by ordinary people. But whereas situational evil is confined to one particular circumstance, which may never repeat itself, categorical evil lasts for an extended period of time and in a variety of different scenarios.

The common element in all three types of evil is a lack of empathy. Without it, the relation between victim and abuser is asymmetric. And the ordinary injunctions of the Golden Rule are set aside.

### 2. The Jonestown Massacre

Several years ago, I wrote the book "Violence and Religious Commitment." It deals with a tragedy that happened in 1978 when 912 members of the People's Temple church died by suicide or murder.

This is a stunning example of "categorical evil," and the book details why it occurred.

Jim Jones was a self-appointed reverend, and a narcissistic psychopath. His mom Lynette had a dream of her dead mother on the far side of a river telling her she would bear a son who would right the wrongs of the world (xi). His father was a poor railroad worker in Lynn, Indiana. As he was growing up, Jones' mother reminded him of her dream, and raised him as a Messiah. Consequently, from 1950 to 1954, he earned money as an itinerant preacher, travelling from church to church. It was during this period he began performing "miracles." In 1955, he started his own church, "The People's Temple of the Disciples of Christ" (xii).

In 1965, Jones pulled up roots, and with 100 of his followers moved to Ukiah, California. By 1971, membership had risen to 2000.

This was a turbulent period in American history. President Kennedy had been assassinated, as was his brother Robert. So was Martin Luther King, Jr., a pacifist leader of the Black Civil Rights Movement, which also took the form of mass protests, and rioting in the streets. The Vietnam War was raging with no end in sight. Young men and women went on marches against what they saw as an illegitimate conflict. Those demonstrations occasionally turned violent. Under these conditions, President Johnson declined to run for re-election. And seven years later, the President who succeeded him, Richard Nixon was forced to resign because of Watergate.

Amidst all of this chaos, Jones' California congregation continued to expand. Membership consisted largely of the poor, the homeless, the unemployed, the itinerant, and the rootless. Over this flock, Jones reigned as charismatic leader and totalitarian authority figure. His word was law.

So, in 1978, in anticipation of a negative expose of his cult-like organization in "New West" magazine, Jones picked up once again, and moved. This time he resettled to a remote camp in the jungles of Guyana, South America. It was there that over 900 of his congregants followed him, cut off from the rest of the world.

During this period, Jones had his members practice "suicide drills," in anticipation of an attack from outside enemies. The trigger finally came during a visit to "Jonestown" by California Congressman Leo Ryan. Jones had the legislator murdered, along with most of the reporters who accompanied him. Then, on November 19, 1978, the suicide drills became reality, as his followers lined up to drink from bowls of cyanide laced Kool-Aid. Those who refused to drink were shot. The 912 dead included Jones himself.

So, how does all this relate to categorical evil? The Jonestown massacre is an extreme example of it. It took place against a background of radical social disarray. Traditional authority had broken down. Government and the laws were considered illegitimate. Police and National Guard were the enemy. Most of those who joined the People's Temple had few outside allegiances, to begin with. They willingly ceded their freedom and independence to a charismatic and messianic leader. He gave them a community to belong to, and something to believe in.

He also isolated them from relatives, friends, and any other contacts in the outside world. Ultimately, he brought them to the jungles of Guyana, where they had no external communication whatsoever. The only voice they heard was his. And his preaching became progressively more apocryphal. Outsiders were enemies, he told them. And cult members needed to prepare for invasion.

What we see is a toxic recipe. With society in disarray, rootless people flocked to a charismatic leader, who gave them a highly cohesive community, organized around a single, all-powerful authority. In their extreme isolation, even the most radical pronouncements went unchallenged. The picture Jones created for them of the outside world became their reality.

In effect, he demonized external society, and his people believed him. They believed him not because they were stupid or credulous. They believed him because their social conditions led them to view the world as "us" versus "them."

That's one way whole categories of people can be dehumanized.

## Crime Statistics

I have argued that: 1) the Golden Rule is universal; and 2) some serious crimes of victimization are also universal. To demonstrate the latter point, I looked at crime in the following nations: the United States and Canada; Brazil and Chile; Germany and France; Japan, Mongolia, and Thailand; Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Republic, and Israel; Cameroon and Kenya.

Of these 14 countries, two are in North America, two in South America, two in Europe, three in East Asia, three in West Asia, and two in Africa.

Of these 14 countries, three are predominantly Catholic, five Protestant, three Buddhist, two Muslim, and one Jewish.

They, therefore, represent a wide swath of cultures both geographically and religiously.

I then selected the following four major crimes: murder, rape, robbery, and burglary. Do all of the countries listed above, regardless of location or religion, consider these behaviors criminal?

The answer is yes. All 14 diverse nations and cultures list these four acts as crimes.

But are they considered serious crimes? In other words, do some cultures view murder a minor offense? Do some cultures see rape as a misdemeanor, at best? Can we support the case for some degree of moral relativism, in terms of the seriousness with which these crimes are regarded?

The answer is no. At the governmental level, at least, there is very little moral relativism. Murder, rape, and aggravated robbery are all considered serious crimes. The seriousness of these offenses does not vary from one nation to another, from one culture to another, from one religion to another.

How do we measure seriousness? We do so by punishment. The harsher the punishment, the more serious the crime. The chart below lists punishments exacted in 14 countries for murder, rape, and robbery.

# TABLE 1. SEVERITY OF PUNISHMENTS

Country . . . .Murder . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robbery

USA . . . . . . capital punishmnt . . . . . life in prison . . . . . . . . .15 years in prison

Canada . . . .life in prison . . . . . . . . . .25 years in prison. . . . . 15 years in prison

Brazil . . . . .30 years in prison . . . . . 30 years in prison. . . . .10 years in prison

Chile . . . . . life in prison . . . . . . . . . .life in prison . . . . . . . . .life in prison

France . . . . life in prison . . . . . . . . . 30 years in prison. . . . . 30 years in prison

Germany . . life in prison . . . . . . . . . 15 years in prison. . . . . 10 years minimum

Japan . . . . . capital punishmnt . . . . . 20 years in prison. . . . .20 years in prison

Thailand . . .capital punishmnt . . . . . 20 years in prison. . . . . 10 years in prison

Mongolia . .30 years in prison . . . . . 30 years in prison. . . . . unknown

UAE . . . . . capital punishmnt . . . . . . capital punishmnt. . . . .capital punishmnt

Saudi A. . . capital punishmnt . . . . . . capital punishmnt. . . . .capital punishmnt

Israel . . . . .life in prison . . . . . . . . . . life in prison . . . . . . . . . felony imprisonmt

Kenya . . . . life in prison . . . . . . . . . life in prison . . . . . . . . . .capital punishmnt

Cameroon .capital punishmnt . . . . . . 10 years in prison. . . . . unknown

What does this mean? It means that there is uniformity in what people world-wide consider evil; and, therefore, by inversion, what they consider good. There may be some moral relativism regarding other types of felonies and misdemeanors. But there is remarkable moral absolutism regarding these serious behaviors.

That being said, it must be admitted that below the official, government level, wide variations do exist regarding the seriousness of even these three worst offenses. For example, in the old west, it was OK to kill your cheating wife and her boyfriend "in flagrante delicto." Husbands who did so were exonerated and even congratulated. In the legend of Robin Hood, one of our great folk heroes was an individual who committed robbery as a way of life.

Recently, in Kenya, where rape is officially punishable by life in prison, unofficially the story is often quite different. A gang of boys in one village raped and beat up a 15 year old girl. "Liz had rejected advances from one of the boys, so he brought his friends to discipline her" (The Guardian). The youths were subsequently caught and sentenced – to the indignation of their parents. The sentence was to cut maize in the fields for a period of weeks.

In explaining the lightness of their sentence, one reporter noted that "girls are not valued" in rural Kenyan culture. Polygamy is common and male chauvinism is rampant.

What these examples have in common is the victim in each case is considered "different." In the Old West, as in modern day Kenya, women were deemed a possession, and forever subservient to the male. In the case of Robin Hood, the victims were always the rich, who clearly deserved to be parted from their ill gotten gains. In the United States, black defendants routinely receive harsher penalties that whites, and are considerably more likely to be handed the death penalty. Indeed this was one of the reasons the Supreme Court temporarily suspended capital punishment.

Does this mean the Golden Rule is not universal? No. What it means is that in the dictum "Do unto others," people tend to interpret the term "others" to refer to individuals like themselves. In the villages of rural Kenya, this encompasses a rather limited demographic. As the world becomes more inclusive and more sophisticated, however, that category broadens. People who used to be considered alien or subordinate or inferior are ultimately recognized as the same as us.

In any event, the Golden Rule still applies. It was still evil for those boys to rape Liz and beat her up.

# GOOD

_Good Deeds_

On May 27, 2018, the following headline appeared in the news.

"Spiderman hailed hero after rescuing child dangling from balcony." A 22 year old young man from Mali was visiting Paris to attend a soccer match, when he spotted the child dangling from a 4th story balcony. He climbed up the side of the building, going from balcony to balcony, at considerable risk to himself, until he reached the child and snatched it from danger. When asked why he did it, he replied, "I like kids. And I would hate to see them get hurt" (MSNBC, 5/28, 2018).

Other examples of good deeds include:

A high school science teacher put his life on the line for his students. "When an armed student entered his Indiana classroom and started firing, the teacher lunged at the shooter and stopped the gunfire" (CNN, 5/29/2018). He was shot three times but survived. "I care for my students and their well-being, " he said. "So that is why I did what I did."

A New Jersey woman was startled to receive a painting of her house after her selfless act of kindness. She had stopped to help an elderly woman take groceries to her car. That 87 year old lady turned out to be an artist. But the helper did not expect a reward. She acted because "It's the right thing to do" ("New Jersey woman's act of kindness repaid with a painting," ABC Action News, 5/26/2018).

Another elderly lady slipped on the ice in her driveway, and fell under her vehicle. "Two women pulled off the road to help me get out from under my van," she reported. "I didn't know these women at all . . . they were my guardian angels" ("Random Acts of Kindness: Strangers Become Guardian Angels," The Peoria Journal Star, 5/27/2018).

A young Saudi man rescued a dog from a well. Late at night he was at his home when he heard barking from a distance. "I heard interrupted and muffled cries that sounded like a distress call," he explained. "Upon using the flashlight, we came to find a dog looking at us from the bottom and its eyes had a look of both fear and sheer misery . . . I felt that it was not possible for me to leave it there" (Variety, "Saudi man in Taif village risks life to rescue dog stuck in well," 5/28/2018).

Matthew 7:12, "In everything then, do to others as you would have them do to you."

## Character

In one sense, good people are simply those who don't do bad things. If they don't lie, cheat, or steal, if they don't commit injury or harm, we consider them decent human beings. That's pretty much what it means in Yiddish to be called a "mensch." It means you're a stand-up kind of guy who keeps his word and shows consideration. It's the best thing you can say about a person. Now, someone may have achieved great fame and fortune. They may have been blessed with great natural beauty. They may be a genius. But if they aren't a mensch, too bad.

But the individuals who did the outstanding deeds listed above are even better than that. Some of them risked their lives to help others. Others risked inconvenience, like the lady who helped an elderly woman with her groceries; or the two individuals who stopped their car when they spotted a woman fall under her van. The victim referred to her rescuers as her "guardian angels." That's what goodness looks like.

In his article "Character – What Is It and Why Is It Important," Michael Josephson says a good character is "defined by worthy traits like integrity, courage, and compassion. People of good character are guided by ethical principles even when it's physically dangerous or detrimental to their careers, social standing, or economic well-being. They do the right thing even when it costs more than they want to pay."

Why is Character so important? Winston Churchill said it's because it is "the essence of who we are." And he added, "Watch your character for your character is your destiny."

And how do we identify character? Again, Churchill tells us, "You can measure a man's character by the choices he makes under pressure." And in her diary, Anne Frank echoed these sentiments, "The formation of a person's character lies in their own hands."

The element of choice here is critical. It was, after all, the original sin in the Garden of Eden. God gave Adam and Eve a choice. Sadly for the rest of us, they made the wrong one.

In all of the examples cited above, one thing shines through. All of these good people cared. They cared about others. In some cases, they cared so much they risked their own lives to save the lives of the endangered. So, clearly, they were not acting in hopes of any material reward. Nor does it appear they were mindful of an immaterial reward later on in Heaven.

The young Saudi man put it best, "Upon using the flashlight, we came to find a dog looking at us from the bottom and its eyes had a look of both fear and sheer misery . . . I felt that it was not possible for me to leave it there." He did what he did out of empathy.

## Good and Evil Compared

The people cited above come from different nations and different cultures. Yet they are committing acts we would all recognize as clearly good or clearly evil. It isn't ambiguous. It isn't relative. Of course, at the time, others may have had a different view. Germans revered Hitler as a great leader. Manson's cult followers worshipped him as a messiah. But that doesn't mean they were right in their judgement, or that their opinions are just as valid as anyone else's.

Some of the behaviors cited above are good. Some are evil. The people committing those behaviors are also either good or evil. It is scatter-brained to assert that there is morally no difference between them. People who torture small animals for the sake of watching them suffer, are evil. To say otherwise is simply to justify their behavior.

Good and evil are not merely the way we characterize others. They aren't just personal opinions. They are features people have, even when they're not being watched. It's like having green eyes. It's a fact, whether some people think so or not.

Why is it fact? It's because symmetry can be observed and measured. And symmetry is what good and evil are all about.

## Courtesy

So far, we have been discussing the most extreme forms of good and evil. We have talked about the acts themselves and the people who commit them. But society is built on symmetries both large and small. At the other end of the spectrum are behaviors that fall under the heading of "propriety," rather than morality. And rather than call the practitioners good or evil, we should prefer appropriate or inappropriate; courteous or rude. Still, we are dealing with matters of right and wrong, and symmetry in human relations. Here are some examples.

All relations begin with a first encounter. And the first part of the first encounter is the greeting. In Japan this is done with a bow. One must keep head and shoulders straight with hands unclenched and to the sides. The bow itself should be 30○. If you're being introduced to the Emperor or other very important person, you almost double over at 45○. Also, the Emperor doesn't need to bow back. But lesser beings do.

After the initial introduction, if you run into each other again, each party should bow 10○. But if you're opponents in a sports match, like wrestling or golf, you bow 20○, which is the same for shop owners to customers. Bowing shows respect in Japan, and it is bad form if you neglect to do it. In Nara, even the deer are so accustomed to bows, they will bow back at you.

In Thailand, it's the Wai. This entails putting both open hands together at chest level, like you're praying, and giving a slight nod of the head. In meeting someone for the first time, both parties employ the Wai. But don't do it to children, waiters, or street vendors. Otherwise, you Wai everyone else, unless you occupy a markedly higher social status than the other individual. In that case, you don't need to Wai him back. Thailand, like most other Oriental countries, places a high value on saving face. If you fail to give someone the traditional greeting, it is considered very bad form.

In the United States and other Western nations, the prescribed greeting is the handshake. It signifies not only respect, but also friendliness and accessibility. The person in the higher social position should be the first to extend the hand. For example, if you're in a job interview, both of you rise from your seats and sustain eye contact. Then, you wait for the person interviewing you to offer his hand.

The handshake itself should be firm, but not crushing. And if the other person's grip is limp, you should give his hand a gentle squeeze. This is his cue to grip more firmly.

The handshake should last from two to five seconds. And the other hand should remain visible and unclenched.

In Spain and other Spanish speaking countries, relations are more formal. For instance, you address friends, relatives, and children with the pronoun "tu." But for strangers and higher status individuals use the more respectful "usted."

Along with the handshake, the prescribed introduction is "mucho gusto," pleased to meet you, and the other person responds "mucho gusto," or "el gusto es mio," the pleasure is mine. Later on, when you run into each other again, the proper greeting is "buenos dias," "buenas tardes," or "buenas noches." This is followed, typically, by "Como estas," and the other responds with some version of "muy bien, y tu," meaning "very well, and you." Such greetings are considered "incredibly important." They're how you show respect.

If you're in a Spanish speaking country, and you encounter five individuals walking towards you on a village road, etiquette requires that you offer "good morning" five times.

These are various ways people across the world greet each other the first time they meet, and routinely after that. On the scale of good and evil, these behaviors fall at the other end of the spectrum from psychopaths and heroes. But these gestures perform an important role because they establish a positive connection between people at the beginning of a relationship, or at the start of an encounter.

At first blush, it may appear that the diversity of greetings lends support to the theory of moral relativism. Different societies have different ways of saying, "Hello."

But I think that misses the point. Each of the societies listed above has some way, some ritual, of introduction and of greeting. In each case, this ritual serves to establish a relation of respect and friendliness. In each case the ritual is strictly prescribed. So, while the details may vary, the overall form and purpose of the etiquette is the same. In that sense, these rituals are absolute. Practically every society has them, and practically every individual is expected to follow them.

The rituals are also symmetric from person to person within the society, and from society to society in their general form. In each case the Golden Rule applies. I will bow to you in the expectation that you will reciprocate the gesture and bow to me, as well. That is, I will show you the same respect that I believe you will show to me. And beneath this reciprocity of gestures is the understanding that everyone deserves respect. Even people who don't much like each other, will still shake hands, because they understand how rude it would be not to.

A final observation concerns objectivity. Is the expectation of proper comportment just something that exists in my mind? Am I just imagining it? No. It's true we can't see how people feel directly. We can't look into their minds. But we can observe the bow, the Wai, the handshake. And this gives us a clear and verifiable mirror into what's going on in their heads. These gestures are not only observable, but also measurable to exacting detail. The degree of the bow, the position of the Wai, the length and firmness of the handshake are all mathematically prescribed. Moreover, if either party fails in their duty, we can also clearly observe what happens in reaction to that failure. In Japan it's called "losing face," and it's a serious insult for the offended party.

There is a larger point to be made here. People who violate the greeting are considered rude. And this is true in practically all societies. Social relations are built on a symmetry of mutual respect and consideration. This holds for the entire gamut of relations, from a fleeting first encounter to a lifelong marriage. Just as the details of the interpersonal norms may vary from culture to culture, the general form remains the same. The principle of symmetry prevails. And just as there can be little doubt about the rudeness of the individual who declines to bow or shake hands, just so there can be no question about the evil of someone who robs you of your money or takes your life.

# LOOSE ENDS

_Unanswered Questions_

So far, we have defined the meaning of good and evil, and traced their origins back to fundamental laws of the Universe. But there still remain some unresolved issues. The biggest one, of course, is God. But let's leave that issue until the final section.

In the meantime, we will tie up some loose ends of the discussion, bearing on the subject of moral symmetry.

1. First, we have shown how morality is symmetric, based on interpersonal empathy and the Golden Rule. But Noether's Theorem says that for every symmetry there should be a corresponding law of conservation. So, if morality is symmetric, what does it conserve?

2. Second, we have shown the prevalence of symmetry in both ethics and aesthetics. Moreover, we have demonstrated that the symmetry of both can be measured. Neither one of them exists merely "in the eye of the beholder." Other than that, however, what's the connection between the two?

3. Third, both Ethics and Aesthetics are gratifying. Both of them give us pleasure. But why? What is our motive for being drawn to symmetry in morals and symmetry in art?

These are the three loose ends that the following sections will address.

## Noether's Theorem and Ethics

Noether's Theorem links symmetry with energy conservation. We have seen examples of this in physics, in nature, in biology, and in art. We have seen how space symmetry is associated with conservation of motion; how time symmetry is associated with conservation of potential and kinetic energy; how mass symmetry is associated with conservation of gravity; and so forth. But what about ethics?

The Golden Rule expresses moral symmetry. It specifically deals with social relations, and how people treat each other. People who follow the Golden Rule are good. Those who flaunt it are evil. Or, at least, they're not very nice. Is there a type of energy conservation that accompanies this type of social even-handedness?

To investigate that question, I put together the table beginning on the next page. This table compares 40 countries around the world to each other. These include the 20 nations with the highest crime rates, and the 20 nations with the lowest crime rates. For each nation, I also listed an economic measure: the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. In other words, the table compares crime to wealth. Why?

The overall crime rate is a measure of the degree to which people violate the Golden Rule. Now, admittedly, this is not the case for victimless crimes like pot smoking, or homosexuality. But the most serious crimes are against other people. As such, they do violate the Golden Rule.

A nation's GDP, on the other hand, is a measure of energy conservation. This is because as civilizations evolved from hunter-gatherers, to farmers, to industry, to high technology, what we see is, at each step, the conservation of energy led to higher productivity. The result was greater wealth.

# TABLE 2. CRIME RATES AND PER CAPITA GNP

##### Top 20 Worst Crime Rates

Country . . . . . . . . . . . . Crime Rank* . . .Per Capita GNP Rank**  
Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100  
New Guinea . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153  
Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141  
S. Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92  
Trin/Tobago . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45  
Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84  
El Salvador . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117  
Namibia . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107  
Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115  
Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180  
Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . .11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147  
Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93  
Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156  
Dom. Rep. . . . . . . . . . . .14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103  
Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164  
Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66  
Mongolia . . . . . . . . . . . 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96  
Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134  
Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . .19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50  
Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . .20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161

##### Top 20 Best Crime Rates

Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Crime Rank . . . . Per Capita GNP Rank

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98 . . . . . . . . . . . . 15  
Czech Rep. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 . . . . . . . . . . . . 39  
Croatia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 . . . . . . . . . . . .61  
Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 . . . . . . . . . . . .26  
Oman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102 . . . . . . . . . . . .27  
Armenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 . . . . . . . . . . . 116  
Slovenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 . . . . . . . . . . . .41  
Iceland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 . . . . . . . . . . . .16  
Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 . . . . . . . . . . . .23  
Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 . . . . . . . . . . . .28  
Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 . . . . . . . . . . . .11  
Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 . . . . . . . . . . . .11.5  
Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 . . . . . . . . . . . .24  
Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 . . . . . . . . . . . .22  
Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112 . . . . . . . . . . . .44  
UAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10  
Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5  
Qatar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2  
Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117 . . . . . . . . . . . ..31

*Source: Numbeo, "Crime Index for Country 2018 Midyear"  
**Source: CIA, "List of Country by GDP (PPP) per Capita"

Consider what happened with the invention of the plow. Fewer people could produce more food. Or, look at what happened when our mode of travel went from walking, to horses, to cars, to planes. With each successive advancement, we saved time and energy, going from point A to point B.

We used the surplus energy to grow and prosper. Advances in technology freed us to pursue higher education, open businesses, create the next digital breakthroughs, and accumulate more wealth. For that reason, the GDP of a nation can be taken as an indicator of energy conservation. Let's call it productivity energy.

On the table, countries are ranked by overall crime rate, from worst to best. So, Venezuela is ranked no.1, because its crime rate was the worst. At the other extreme, Japan is ranked 117, because its crime rate was the best. That is, Japan had the least crime of all 40 nations.

For each country, I also listed their GDP rank. So, Venezuela, ranked no.1 for crime, has a rank of 100 for wealth. Japan, ranked 117 for crime, is ranked 31 for wealth. Papua New Guinea, ranked no. 2 for crime, ranks 153 for wealth. And, at the other end, Qatar, ranked 116 for crime, comes in at no. 2 for wealth.

So, what we see is a clear pattern. The 20 most crime ridden nations also are the poorest. The 20 least crime ridden nations also are the richest. To validate this finding, I then did a statistical analysis of the data.

The results are stunning. The statistical correlation between overall crime rate and GDP per capita is a remarkable -0.8058. This is nearly a perfect relationship. The correlation coefficient can range from 0.0 to 1.0, with 1.0 being an exact match. To get a 0.80 is very close to exact. The minus sign means the relationship is inverse. That is, the higher the crime, the lower the wealth.

And the probability that this result could have happened by chance is an equally astounding "p ≤ 0.00001." In science, a probability of ≤ 0.05 is considered respectable. It means, the likelihood of a finding happening by chance is five times out of a hundred. A probability of ≤ 0.01 is a very good result. It means that the result of an experiment must be quite significant, because it could only happen by accident one time out of 100.

But a probability of p ≤ 0.00001 means that the result could only appear by chance one time out of 100,000. In other words, 99,999 times out of 100,000, the finding of the experiment is real.

So, we can assert with confidence that the less crime ridden the country, the greater is its wealth. And this translates to: the more any nation, on average, adheres to the Golden Rule, the more its productivity energy is conserved. Noether's Theorem applies to the symmetry of human relations, just as much as it applies to gravity, to bipedalism, or to the wings of a butterfly.

## Ethics and Aesthetics

Ethics and Aesthetics are alike in many ways. Some might even say they are the same. Both are thought to be subjective, that is, to exist only "in the eye of the beholder." By this way of thinking, we all have personal opinions about what's beautiful and what's good, and all opinions are equally valid.

But I have presented evidence to the contrary. Beauty conforms to universal standards. And these standards are so exacting, they can be measured out to the third decimal point. Likewise, morality conforms to universal standards, even though the particular expression of these standards can vary from culture to culture. Neither beauty nor morality are simply matters of opinion. If you and I disagree whether a work of art is beautiful or ugly - if we disagree about whether someone is bad or good - one of us is right and the other one is wrong.

Truth, Ethics and Aesthetics are Plato's three "absolutes." These three are not only objectively real, they are super real. And this is because all other categories of being participate in them to some degree (Wattles). All three are symmetric, in terms of balance, harmony, and proportion. And each one incorporates the other two. Truth is beautiful and good. Beauty is true and good. Goodness is beautiful and true (Wattles).

This synthesis of absolutes is expressed in "kalon," a term from the Greek "kallos," or beauty. It denotes an ideal, perfect beauty in both a physical and moral sense. As Socrates observes in "Philebus," "For, measure and proportion manifest themselves in all areas as beauty and virtue" (64e-65e). Proportionality is what connects the two.

Famed architect Frank Lloyd Wright, takes it a step further, saying, "Beauty is the highest expression of morality." To which Richard Evans adds, "Morality is the highest expression of beauty" (Evans).

This amalgam is what Keats alludes to in his "Ode on a Grecian Urn." He writes, "Truth is beauty, beauty truth. That's all ye know on Earth and all ye need to know." He omits "morality" because, he implies, beauty is morality.

In his 1784 work "Songs of Innocence and Experience," William Blake leaves morality out for a different reason. He asks, "Tyger, tyger burning bright in the forests of the night, what immortal hand or eye dare frame thy fearful symmetrie?" Here Blake acknowledges the symmetry of beauty, but he equates it with menace. The tiger has no morals. It is his very symmetric perfection that makes him so lethal.

Popular fiction regularly links ethics and aesthetics. In the movies and on TV, the hero is invariably handsome, and the villain ugly. In fairy tales, this theme is consistent. Recall "Snow White," "Sleeping Beauty," "Rapunzel," "Cinderella," "The Little Mermaid," "The Wizard of Oz," "Little Red Riding Hood." In each and every case, the heroine is a lovely young girl. Her beauty bespeaks her purity and her goodness. The evil nemesis, on the other hand, is a troll, a dwarf, a witch, a step mother, a step-sister, a wolf – all of them repulsive. Their ugliness reflects their badness. Also, to top things off, the lovely young damsel is ultimately rescued by that other archetype of beauty – the dashing young man. It's as if beauty per se triumphs over evil.

Even Shakespeare draws this connection. In "The Tempest," it's Caliban, the misshapen monster who plots revenge and injury against the master who befriended him. It's Ariel the enchanting sprite who comes to the rescue. One is a base creature of the earth. The other is a lithe spirit of the air. In "Richard III," it's the hunchback King versus the gallant Henry. In Othello, it's the skulking Iago against the young and handsome Cassio.

Naturally, in the "Tempest" it's the lovely and remarkably innocent ("Oh, brave new world that has such people in't") Miranda who is threatened by Caliban. And, once again, it's the dashing and "equally pure and naive" Ferdinand who comes to shield her.

Of course, this isn't true. Beautiful people aren't always good. And good people aren't always beautiful. Indeed, as William Blake cautions us, beauty itself can be both seductive and lethal. Consider Ted Bundy. So, why do we regularly equate the two? Why do we think beauty and goodness must go together?

Here is my answer. Both ethics and aesthetics produce pain and pleasure. Beauty is attractive, and ugliness is repulsive. Beauty produces joy and happiness. Ugliness creates discomfort. Ethics have similar results. Evildoers cause pain and suffering. Goodness eases pain and alleviates suffering. Goodness restores balance and brings relief.

Arthur Danto agrees. In his essay "Beauty and Morality," he writes, "Beauty can transform grief to 'tranquil sadness,' and pain into 'muted pleasure.'" He gives the example of Maya Lin's Vietnam Memorial in Washington D.C. Its "beauty of concept, color, and form . . . folds together in angelic embrace the dead and the living."

In Nazi concentration camps, the one pleasure inmates were allowed was music. Imprisoned artists, reduced from the comfortable, productive lives they enjoyed on the outside, gave their final performances before the doomed and tormented victims gathered outside to hear them. Music brought a temporary surcease from pain, and lifted them beyond the horror they found themselves in. The music was a blessing.

This is not to say that good people are beautiful and bad people are ugly. Often, it's the other way around. But it is to say beauty, per se, produces pleasure, and that pleasure is good. Even if the beauty itself comes from an evil source - say a deadly nightshade – the source can be vile, but the beauty it produces is good.

We certainly can fault the German composer Wagner for his anti-Semitism, and his inspiration for the Nazi movement. But we can still appreciate his music. It still makes us feel good.

But why? Why are both ethics and aesthetics pleasant? Is it just a coincidence? Why do we enjoy the fractal geometry of a leaf, or of a river delta, or of a tree? Why does it give us pleasure to see the balance of a human face, or of a tiger face, or of an orchid? Why do we feel comforted to view an elderly couple walking hand-in-hand, or a thief being thwarted by a good Samaritan, or a handshake between two strangers? I think it's for the same reason in every case.

It's like when we hear a great symphony and, for that brief period of time, we feel uplifted. We feel removed from ourselves. Some essential Truth is being communicated to us. And that Truth is what Plato and Aristotle saw thousands of years ago, and what Roger Penrose sees today. It's about balance and proportionality. It's about the dazzling and elegant symmetry in the mathematics that undergird our Universe. We are part of that Universe. We are part of that symmetry. And whenever we catch a glimpse of it, it feels right.

## Symmetry and Pleasure

Why is symmetry pleasant? Let's look at this question in more detail. We have already noted that symmetry is prevalent in the Universe. It dominates major walks of life, including physics, aesthetics, and ethics. Symmetry is efficient, in terms of energy conservation. And symmetry is attractive. But why?

Why are we charmed by symmetric butterfly wings? Why are we captivated by the balanced design of Van Gogh's "Irises"? Why are we moved by the repetition of the iconic notes in Beethoven's Fifth? Why are we gratified by novels where good prevails over evil?

One way to answer these questions is to look at the reverse. Consider an automobile advancing towards you with 16 inch tires on one side and 13 inch tires on the other. What about a tree with all of its branches on the left and no branches at all on the right? Or, imagine a face with one eye bigger and lower than the other. And how about a novel where the villain does something dreadful, and gets away with it in the end?

In each of these cases the effect is unsatisfying and disturbing. Something feels wrong. What is it about the asymmetry in each example that so unsettles us?

One explanation has to do with health and fitness. Symmetric butterflies are bigger, more vibrant, and have stronger immune systems. Symmetric flowers produce sweeter nectar. Symmetric people have fewer mutations. Perhaps, for purposes of reproduction, we are drawn to healthier mates.

But how would this impact our appreciation for art? What would be the connection between Beethoven's Fifth and good health? Another theory hits closer to home. We ourselves are symmetric, and so are the people we interact with. Our world of social contacts is symmetric. So, perhaps we judge everything else by that standard. Man, declared Leonardo, is the measure of all things.

My own theory is that our preference for symmetry has to do with laziness. The Universe is lazy and inclines to the easiest path. In music, repetition makes a piece memorable and easier to follow. In nature gravity requires balance in plants, animals, and in us. In painting, art reflects life. So, the balance in nature underlies the balance in design.

We live in a symmetric world. Things that obey that principle, therefore, have an easier trajectory. Things that don't obey, don't seem right. They seem off, somehow. And it disturbs us. We suffer a kind of cognitive dissonance, where what we see clashes with what we expect. When art, nature, and humanity do obey the principle of balance, equivalence, and reflection, however, it is gratifying, because that's how everything fits.

Symmetry underlies all of nature. When we see symmetry, we see the Truth.

# GOD

_Can There Be Good Without God?_

Up to now I have left God out of the picture. None of the foregoing discussion on good and evil references Him. This may strike you as odd. After all, in most religions, God and good are synonymous. The good is whatever God says it is. That's how we know. Moreover, God adds a little extra incentive by holding out the promise of Heaven if we comply. And for those who refuse, well, they can go somewhere else.

So, why not include God in the discussion? The answer is threefold. First, the definitions for good and evil cannot be arbitrary. That is, if someone should ask the question, "Why be good?" the answer can't be, "Because I say so," or "Because God says so." Those aren't really reasons. They're just commands.

Second, the answer can't be based on religion. If it is, then you have to ask, "Which religion?" There are a lot of them out there. So, either you pick one and say this is the best religion, and all the others are wrong. Or, you accept all religions as equally correct. That's moral relativism on steroids.

Third, and most important of all, doing good has to be an end in itself. You do good because you feel it. You do good to relieve the pain of others, to alleviate their suffering, or simply to make them happy. Josephson hammers this point home when, in his definition of goodness he says you do good, "even when it's physically dangerous or detrimental. . ."

Goodness must be an end in itself. Not only don't you expect a reward, but you might even get hurt. You do it anyway. Goodness cannot be a means to an end, like getting paid, or becoming famous, or going to Heaven. Nor can it be obedience to a command, even if the command comes from God; because then you aren't doing it because you want to, but because you have to.

So, why must good be an end in itself? The reason is because if you do good for another motive, then your behavior is characterized by that motive. That is, you're earning money, or you're gaining fame, or you're pleasing God. To the extent that behavior is defined by motive, none of these behaviors can be called, "doing good."

For example, consider "Spiderman," the young man from Mali, who rescued a child from a fourth story balcony. What he did was courageous, selfless, and remarkable. But suppose we later found out, it was all a setup, and he was really just doing it for a magazine spread. What would we think about him then?

So, that's why I have thus far left God out of the picture. The definitions for good and evil must be logical, not arbitrary. The definitions must be universal, and not confined to any particular religious belief. It must be possible even for atheists to be moral. It flies against common sense and everyday experience to claim that only people from XYZ religion can be good, and that everyone else is evil no matter what they do. Finally, goodness must be an end in itself.

## Can There Be Evil With God?

So, why talk about God now? The reason is because, for perhaps half the world's population, the terms God and good are synonymous. God defines what is good and evil. He gives us Commandments. Many of our civil laws derive from those Commandments. In the Koran, in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, in the Upanishads, God, or a god, is the final word on morality. But if God does exist, then we have a dilemma: If God is God, then He can't be good. But if God is good, then He can't be God (from Epicurus, 4th Century B.C.).

In other words, if God is all powerful and yet He still allows evil to occur, then He must not be good. On the other hand, if God really is good, but unable to prevent evil, then He can't be all powerful. He can't be God.

The following sections address this dilemma.

#### 1. The Prevalence of Evil

The pervasiveness of evil is one of the traditional arguments against the existence of God (Levi-b). When horrible and unspeakable things happen even to the most innocent and decent among us, doesn't that mean that the Universe is at best indifferent and at worst unjust? Doesn't that mean there is no morally supreme Being?

The previous century has been perhaps the most barbaric of all time. Communism claimed about 100 million victims, with 72 million estimated to have been slaughtered or starved in China, alone. Add to that some 20 million killed by Lenin and Stalin, plus another two million Cambodians - one fourth of the country's population - massacred in the "killing fields." Leader of the Khmer Rouge Pol Pot, before he died of natural causes, told a magazine he had nothing to apologize for. His cause, he maintained, was "just."

In addition to communism's toll, include the tens of millions of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals slaughtered by the Nazis. Or, consider the 350,000 Chinese massacred by the Japanese in Nanking. Recalling this terrible event, Japanese veterans, now in their 80s, say they felt nothing shooting to death Chinese civilian men, women, girls, and boys. Said one, "It was like killing a pig."

In July, 1941, half the population of the Polish village of Jedwabne massacred the other half. It was during Nazi occupation. One of the first questions German occupiers were asked when they took over the town was, "Is it permitted to kill the Jews?" In a town meeting the German occupiers even proposed leaving one Jewish family from every profession alive. Local carpenter Bronislaw Szlesinski objected, "We have enough of our own craftsmen. We have to destroy all the Jews. None should stay alive." The mayor and city council agreed. Writing about the event 69 years later, columnist George Will concluded that Jedwabne tells us something about human nature. Villagers killed the Jews, he says, for one simple reason - because they could (Newsweek, 7/9/2001).

In all, World War II claimed about 50 million lives. These include the 100,000 killed in the immediate devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the estimated 350,000 who ultimately died of burns, radiation, and related causes. The debate still persists whether the United States was justified in the first and only use of atomic weapons. Some claim it was avoidable. Others, citing the 17 million people killed by the Japanese during the war, hold that the act was just.

Even closer to home, the United States seems to be breeding a generation of monsters. Pamela Smart, a New Hampshire school teacher, induces her 15-year-old lover and two of his friends to kill her husband, because murder would be more convenient than divorce. The three boys carry out the crime. The adolescent lover does it because he's captivated by her. But why did the other two boys go along? Were they just being loyal to a friend? Did they think it would be fun? Was it for money? What was their compelling motive?

In Denver, a white, 19-year-old "skinhead" for no apparent reason shoots a black man at a bus stop and then shoots a white nurse who comes to his aid. In an interview, the young offender explained, "He [the victim] really didn't belong where he was, and I thought how easy it would be for me to take him out."

The litany of such cases is endless. Even though these events are far from typical, still the fact they are pervasive and persistent tells us something about America today. We breed monsters. Many, many monsters. And that is the case even now, even in the 21st Century, even after six millennia of civilization, even after the lessons of two World Wars.

Vincent Bugliosi, famed prosecutor of Charles Manson, poses the question in his book Outrage, about the trial of O. J. Simpson for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. "When tragedies like the murder of Nicole and Ron occur, they get one to thinking about the notion of God. Nicole was only 35, Ron just 25, both outgoing, friendly, well-liked young people who had a zest for life. Their lives were brutally extinguished by a cold-blooded murderer. How does God, if there is a God, permit such a horrendous and terrible act to occur, along with the countless other unspeakable atrocities committed by man against his fellow man throughout history?"

So, there is little reason for optimism that decency will ultimately prevail. On the contrary, there is very much evidence that civilization is a thin veneer, as Golding indicated in Lord of the Flies; that essentially, people are fearful and cruel and hateful by nature; or, at best, indifferent.

Bugliosi reiterates the dilemma: if God is all powerful, yet permits atrocities to happen, then He is not good. But if God is good, and atrocity occurs anyway, then He is not all powerful.

### 2. Human Suffering

Recently, a young man was killed by a wood chipper. He was only 19 years old, and new to his construction job. Somehow, he managed to get caught up by the machine and slowly but inexorably pulled into it. Is it possible to imagine a more horrendous way to die? Why did such a young innocent person have to be killed at all? And why, especially, did he have to be slaughtered in such agonizing torment, that we would not wish on the most evil and despicable wretch?

If God exists, why does he permit such awful human suffering? Why must even the most innocent, sinless, and guilt free among us be subjected to such unspeakable torment?

I have grappled with this question. I have not come up with any easy answers. If we look to Judaism and Christianity, we come up with two disparate positions. In the Old Testament, human suffering, as depicted in the book of Job, is viewed as a test. It is a test of the strength of one's faith in God. Again and again, Job's friends and advisors counsel him to denounce the Lord, in light of the devastation that has befallen him in his life. But Job refuses. His faith in God remains steadfast. And he is rewarded in the end.

In the New Testament, on the other hand, God sends His only son Jesus to comfort humanity in its time of need. This personification of God is meant to relieve Earthly suffering through comfort and the force of love. As Peter Kreeft writes, "He sits beside us in the lowest places of our lives..." Jesus is a reminder that God is always with us, to give us strength in our moments of despair.

God may be immanent, inside us, sharing our tribulations, and giving us comfort when we need Him the most. But why doesn't He intervene?

### 3. Suffering From Natural Causes

Even if, somehow, we could explain – or rationalize – man's cruelty to man, how do we deal with the suffering people endure from natural causes? Nature attacks us from land, sea, and air; through earthquakes and tsunamis; fire and ice; sinkholes, tornados and hurricanes; mosquitoes, malaria, cholera, AIDS, muscular dystrophy; through all the ravages attendant on old age, cancer, heart disease, pneumonia, and stroke. How do we justify so much suffering in the arms of a so-called merciful and benevolent God?

It is not enough to say, "What doesn't kill us makes us stronger." That sounds like an anodyne, cynical and flippant excuse for suffering, although it may contain a grain of truth. We are evolving.

But that's not enough. There is a beautiful tropical resort I visit every year. In this place, I can look out on a sparkling bay, embraced on three sides by verdant mountains, and stretching toward a boundless horizon. It is very easy to feel the hand of God in the awe this view inspires. But as I walk the quaint cobblestone streets of this enchanted site, I also encounter the most gut-wrenching sorts of horror. There is a little man who has lost both of his legs and walks with shoes on his knees. Another person sits in his wheelchair because he has neither legs nor an arm. Another huddles on the ground with a begging cup and a cardboard sign he holds up to obscure the view of his face, which has turned black and bloated and grotesque.

Where is God in all of this? I can't say. I don't know. And any rationale I might offer can only seem callous and obtuse.

## Choice

#### 1. Intervention

Of the many logical and philosophical objections to the existence of God, the one that resonates the strongest with people is the basic question of human suffering. As Vincent Bugliosi plainly stated, in reference to one particular atrocity, "How does God, if there is a God, permit such a horrendous and terrible act to occur...?"

Perhaps, the answer is two-fold. God is perfect. His laws are perfect. The fundamental equations of physics that govern the Universe exemplify God's Mind. They are both perfectly logical and universal. To imagine that God would break his own laws and alter the course of events governed by those laws may be misguided. We all wish for miracles. But what is a miracle, but something that breaks the laws of God? Why would God do that?

There is also an assumption in Bugliosi's complaint, "How does God...permit such a horrendous act..." The assumption is that God does intervene in human affairs. This is certainly a reasonable assumption, dating back to Greek and Roman gods who were constantly intervening, if not downright meddling. It also has its roots in the Bible, where God routinely involved Himself in worldly matters – for example, the casting of Adam Eve from the Garden of Eden, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the parting of the Red Sea. It is precisely because we assume God does intervene, that we blame Him when He doesn't.

If, however, we did not make that assumption, then Bugliosi's complaint would be wrong. If, instead, we supposed that God gave us this life to make what we will of it, in regard to morality, to science, to engineering, to medicine, then we cannot blame him for the results. This is a position widely held by Deism. According to them, "God left Nature to work itself out in obedience to laws originally given...they believe neither that God takes care for the universe nor that He can do miracles" ("God does not intervene in the universe (Deism)").

### 2. Choice and Character

When he was a boy, Vincent Bugliosi posed a question to a Monsignor at a Catholic school he attended. He asked why God doesn't prevent evil. The priest explained it to him this way. God gives us all free will and is not responsible for the choices we make. The young Bugliosi countered that if God were all knowing, then why would He put people on the Earth who He knew were going to end up in hell?

Let's look at Bugliosi's dilemma. First, consider the Monsignor's argument about free will. If man had no choice, then could he ever be either good or bad? No. He would be pre-programmed or pre-destined to act in a certain way, just like a robot. Yet, in the final analysis, what is a person but the sum of his or her moral choices? As Churchill said, "Watch your character, for your character is your destiny." Without free will, character would be irrelevant. We would lose the very thing that makes us most distinctly human.

I believe the answer is two-fold. First, we are human beings, not robots, not automatons, not computer programs. Above all, this means we have choice. We have been given a democracy, not a dictatorship. And the most critical choice of all is the one regarding character.

But the problem is: if we are free to do good, then we must also be free not to. Indeed, were we not free to be evil, then goodness itself would have no meaning. Character would have no meaning. And the one thing that makes us most distinctly human would have no meaning. The essence of being a good and decent human being is not so much what we do but the choices we make, especially when those choices are hard.

We don't blame the rock for bouncing off someone's head. We don't blame the plant for poisoning someone. We don't blame the leopard for killing its prey. Neither the rock, nor the plant, nor the leopard have a choice. Moreover, the law provides "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" as criminal defense, recognizing that a certain class of people – the insane – might not have a choice either. In addition, I might add ignorance and lack of awareness, not perhaps as a defense, but certainly as a reason for abhorrent behavior. That is why we don't convict small children. In effect, they don't have a choice because they don't know any better.

But both as individuals and as a society, we have a choice, and what we choose determines who we are. Inevitably, some will choose evil, and others will suffer because of it.

## The Arc of the Moral Universe

We have seen ample evidence for the prevalence of evil. On the other hand, the ideal of goodness, however variously interpreted, is also undeniable. We have a capacity for goodness. The Raul Wallenbergs, the Oscar Schindlers, the Mother Theresas, the Doctors without Borders, the Peace Corps, these are exemplars of what less illustrious, more ordinary people accomplish every day. These include the brave rescuers who plunge into roiling waters or burning buildings to save the lives of strangers. These include the volunteers who spend days searching for missing children; the good Samaritan who jumps onto the subway tracks to rescue someone who fell; the patrolman who jeopardizes his own life to stop a terrorist. Goodness is a fact.

While evil proliferates in the world, we must not forget that so does good. The strength and prevalence of evil does not negate the idea that God is good. No more than does the prevalence of ignorance negate the idea that God is wise; or the prevalence of weakness, that God is strong. God is greater than man. Just because God is strong and wise and good, doesn't mean we are. Just because we aren't, doesn't mean He isn't. Man has the opportunity to aspire to be more like God. Man has the capacity to become more strong, more wise, and more good. This is a capacity denied to lesser animals. They can't make themselves any better than they are. But we can. If we do, if we ultimately manage to climb out of our darkness, then the God that we worship can be our light.

The symmetry of the Universe operates not only over space, but also over time. In that regard, Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke the following words:

"When our days become weary with low hanging clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" (AZ quotes).

Prophetically, although Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in 1968, his words rang true; because 40 years later America elected its first black President. The principle of symmetry suggests the Universe is in a state of balance. And this is the case not just in physics, but also in aesthetics, and also in morality. The arc of justice should ultimately prevail.

# SYMMETRY, MORALITY, AND GOD

_What Do We Mean by Goodness?_

What do we mean by goodness? In the West, thanks to Aristotle, we seem to mean three things: physics, esthetics, and ethics. Physics pertains to material behavior, wherein goodness equals functionality. Esthetics pertains to perception, wherein goodness equals pleasure. Ethics pertains to human behavior, wherein goodness equals morality.

So, we can say, "He is a good man," "This is a good car," and "That is good food," and mean three quite different things. But all three forms of goodness have something in common: balance. Aristotle called it the "Golden Mean." Under such conditions, things are functional, because everything works in harmony. Perceptions are pleasurable, because harmony is appealing. Behaviors are moral, because harmony attunes us to each other.

Balance can be measured mathematically, because it is based on proportionality. Thus, goodness, in any form, can be objectively determined. It can be empirically measured just as mechanics can measure the balance of a tire, or plastic surgeons can measure the proportions of a beautiful face.

## The Highest Order

The scales of justice are a calibrating device for human behavior, but they work much like the tire balancing machine in the auto shop. The principles of goodness that applied to material objects before humans ever appeared on the face of the Earth, continue to apply in exactly the same way to interaction among people now that we have emerged on the scene.

We might therefore conclude right makes might. Right, goodness, balance, symmetry, harmony are synonymous terms for what makes things work, what makes art beautiful, and what makes people good. If the Universe were to fall out of balance, it would collapse. If one violin plays out of sync with the rest, the result is discord. If one person treats another unfairly, the result is injustice. Imbalance creates dysfunction.

The Universe, of course, is dynamic. Galaxies are rushing away from each other at tremendous speeds. Not every instrument in the orchestra plays the same tune. And nations are constantly at war. Things are forever in the process of coming unbalanced, and finding a new equilibrium. Balance is not synonymous with uniformity. On the contrary, imbalance in a lower order often supports balance in a higher order. That's how ecology works. Few things are static. Big fish eat little fish. Old trees dry out and burn, making room for new growth coming in behind them. Children rebel against parents in the process of becoming mature. A completely static, completely uniform system would soon fall out of balance with its wider environment.

It is for this reason that the greatest good can only be understood from the perspective of the highest order - the widest space and the longest time. At those levels, goodness is a comprehensive and comprehensible whole. Goodness is one. We are wrapped in it, and because of it, we exist.

We call that highest level of symmetry "order." We may as well call it "God." For that reason, the more we understand about the order of the Universe, the more we come to understand God. Thus, while omnipotence may be God's main defining feature, it may not be His fundamental attribute. We cannot define a being as God unless He is all powerful. But no being could be all powerful unless He were perfectly good.

# CONCLUSION

_Standard and Authority_

#### 1. Standard

The Golden Rule is the standard for good and evil. It is a universal standard, observed across nations, cultures, and religions. How do you know if an act is moral or immoral? Follow the Golden Rule.

Why the Golden Rule? The reason is because we know what's bad or good when something happens to us. Under those circumstances, issues of right and wrong come sharply into focus. So, that's how you know how the other person would feel if you applied your feelings to them. That's how you know what's evil and what's good.

That's also how we know good and evil are real. Not only is the Golden Rule universal, but it's also measurable. We have the Hare Psychopathy Checklist for extreme cases. But beyond that we can observe how people treat each other, and determine whether or not that's how they would want to be treated themselves.

But isn't it all about simple fairness? Aren't we just saying, be fair in your treatment of others? So, why not use that as the standard?

The reason is two-fold. First of all, the term is vague. How can you determine what's fair or unfair? The Golden Rule gives you that answer. Second, "fairness," per se, doesn't explain why someone would climb a five story balcony to rescue a child. It doesn't explain Doctors without Borders. It doesn't explain torturing small animals. The Golden Rule does. It tells us all to be introspective, to have empathy, to put ourselves in the other person's shoes, and then to act in the best interest of that other person.

Fairness, as we have seen, is just one of many standards that have been invoked to justify moral behavior. Some of the others include: "Might makes right;" "If it feels good, do it;" "The theory of the Master Race;" "The Categorical Imperative;" "The Social Contract;" "The Bible." And, of course, there's always that covert standard – "Rationalization."

So, the question of good and evil is not so straightforward. In fact, there are many competing definitions. In this essay, I have argued for one standard in particular, the Golden Rule. Adhere to that standard only, and you can't go wrong.

### 2. Authority

If the Golden Rule is our standard, what is the authority that requires us to follow it? In religion, the authority is simple: the Bible. Do it because the Bible tells you to. In families, when children ask, "Why," Mom responds: "Because I said so." That's reason enough to obey. So, what's the authority for the Golden Rule?

The simple answer is: the Universe. What?!! My loyal skeptic, Mr. Herrman insists, "the Universe doesn't care . . ." I disagree. Throughout this essay, I have tried to make the case that the Universe cares very much.

The Universe is lazy. It always seeks the easiest path. It always tries to conserve energy. That's precisely what Newton tells us in his First Law of Motion: "An object at rest stays at rest. An object in motion stays in motion at the same speed and in the same direction unless disturbed by an unbalanced force."

All of nature bears witness to this fact. Our entire history on this planet confirms it. We became bi-lateral to conserve energy of motion. Then, we became bi-pedal to conserve motion even more. The resulting conservation freed our arms and hands for further productive pursuits. The huge expansion of our brain, following bi-pedalism, made us more productive still.

Civilization is built on energy conservation. Consider how we rose from hunter-gatherers, to farmers, to entrepreneurs. Consider industrialization and automation. Consider the cyber revolution. In each case, some invention made life easier for us, and freed us up for greater advances in productivity.

Today, if we want to talk to someone, we don't have to go to their homes. We don't even have to return to our own homes for the landline. Instead, we have cell phones that accompany us wherever we go. We don't have to go to the grocery store any more. We have an app for dinner ingredients to be sent to our homes along with recipes and instructions. How lazy is that?

Symmetry is the fundamental way energy is conserved. That's what Noether's Theorem tells us. This is the case in physics, in nature, in biology, and even in human relations. The more we treat each other symmetrically – the more we adhere to the Golden Rule – the more energy we conserve, and the more productive we become.

Roger Penrose tells us our entire model of the Universe is build on symmetries. It's how everything works. Therefore, when we see symmetry, we see Truth. When we see Truth, we see Beauty. When we see Truth and Beauty, we see Good.

The Truth of the Universe is our authority.

## Something New under the Sun

Over the course of four and a half billion years, humans evolved from single cell organisms, to worms, to fish, to amphibians, to squirrel-like mammals, to monkeys, to chimpanzees, and, ultimately, to us. But with the advent of humans, planet Earth bore witness to something entirely new under the sun.

We were the first exclusively to walk upright on two feet. We were the first to have hands completely free to manipulate our environment. We were the first to be self-conscious. Unlike any other creature on Earth, we were the first and only species capable of conceptualizing ourselves and our place in the Universe.

No wonder fundamentalists strenuously oppose the theory of evolution. We represent a clean break in the evolutionary chain. We are something entirely new and different. Unlike all other species, we are not just created, we are creators.

And what we have created is a world in our own image. We have created industry and invention and engineering and language and science and art. And we were able to do so, because we could perceive the fundamental laws of the Universe, and use them to our advantage.

In particular, we perceived the underlying symmetries in nature, and we reflected them in our own creations. Consider the art of Leonardo or Van Gogh. Consider the Taj Mahal. Consider the atomic bomb. This stupendous invention resulted from e = mc2. That's Einstein's realization that mass and energy are equivalent.

We were able to apply the same insights to human relations. We are the only species capable of being fully aware of the equivalence between ourselves and others. We are the only ones capable of real empathy. We are the only ones with choice. Therefore, of all the other inhabitants of our planet, we alone are the only ones with morals.

It is exclusively for us that issues of good and evil apply. You can't blame the tiger for attacking its prey. Nor can you condemn the shark. But you can blame us, because we understand each other; and because we have a choice.

We alone have the ability to make ourselves better. Just as we can create towering skyscrapers, and vast civilizations, just so, we can form and shape the kind of person we become. We can choose our level of education. We can choose where we live. We can choose our career. And, in particular, we can choose our character. And this may be our finest achievement. Our character, as Churchill reminds us, is our destiny.

Moral symmetry is the insight we gain from human equivalence. How we apply this insight is what makes the difference between the evil and the good.

##### ###

# FINAL NOTE

##### _Compassion was the most important,  
perhaps the sole law of human existence.  
_Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Idiot

# REFERENCES

"10 Animals with Surprisingly Smart Social Lives," http://mentalfloss.com/article/ 55875/10-animals-with-surprisingly-smart-social-lives.

Allman, J.M., Hakeem, A., Erwin, J.M., Nimchinsky, E., Hof, P., "The Anterior Cingulate Cortex: The Evolution of an Interface between Emotion and Cognition," Annual of the New York Academy of Sciences, 935: 107-117, June 2001.

Anderson, P.W., "More is Different," Science, 177, 4047, 1972.

Arendt, Hannah, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil," Viking Press: New York, 1963.

Atkins, P.W., The Creation, 1981, W. H. Freeman and Company: Oxford and San Francisco.

AZ Quotes, www.azquotes.com/author/5106-Anne-Frank.

AZ Quotes, www.azquotes.com/author/2886-Winston-Churchill.

Bacon, William, "Why Symmetry Predicts Bodily Attractiveness," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, [Internet], August 19, 2008.

Barbey, Aron, Colom, Roberto, and Grafman, Jordan, "Distributed neural system for emotional intelligence revealed by lesion mapping," Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience [internet]. 2012.

Barbey, Aron, Colom, Robert, and Grafman, Jordan, "Correlation between Emotional Intelligence and IQ," https://www.memorykey.com/research/ news/correlation-between-emotional-intelligence-and-IQ, Feb., 2013.

Barbey, Aron K., Colom, Roberto, and Grafman, Jordan, "Distributed neural system for emotional intelligence revealed by lesion mapping," in Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience [Internet], 2012.

Beaumont, J. Graham, Introduction to Neuropsychology, Guilford Press: New York, 2008.

"The Beauty of Symmetry," YouTube.

Bejan, Adrian, and Zane, Reder, Design in Nature, Doubleday: New York, 2012.

Bugliosi, Vincent, Helter Skelter, W.W. Norton: New York, 1974.

Bugliosi, Vincent, Outrage, W.W. Norton: New York, 1996.

Capote, Truman, In Cold Blood, Barnes and Noble: New York, 1966.

CIA, "List of Country by GDP (PPP) per Capita," The World Factbook [Internet], 2018.

Cole, M.W., "Cingulate Cortex and the Evolution of Human Uniqueness," in Neurevolution: Neuroscience, Cognition, and Society," [internet], Nov. 12, 2009.

Colquitt, Jason A., Rodell, Jessica B., "Measuring Justice and Fairness," in Cropazano, Russell, and Ambrose, Maureen L., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace, Jul. 2015.

Costandi, Mo, "Bipedalism, Birth and Brain Evolution," www.theguardian.com/ science/neuro-philosophy/2012/may/07/1.

Curzer, H.J., 1996, "A Defense of Aristotle's Doctrine that Virtue Is a Mean," Ancient Philosophy, 16: 129-135.

Danto, Arthur, "Beauty and Morality," in Beckly, B., and Shapiro, D., Uncontrollable Beauty: Towards a New Aesthetics, pp. 25-37, Allworth Press: New York, 1998.

Davis, Alan A., "The Rationality of Plato's Theory of Good and Evil, scholarscommons@laurier, 1979.

Decety, Jean, "Dissecting the Neural Mechanisms Mediating Empathy," Emotion Review, 3(1), Jan. 2001.

"Deontology," in The Basics of Philosophy, www.philosophybasics.com/branch-deontology.html.

Eagleton, Terry, On Evil, Yale University Press: New Haven and London, 2010.

"Ethics Unwrapped," www.texas.edu/glossary/moral-relativism.

Evans, Richard L., "Beauty and Morality," www.lds.org/ensign/1971/os/the-spoken-word/beauty-and-morality?/lang=eng/r=1.

Evlampieff, Mauricio "Greetings in Spanish," Rocket Languages, 2018 edition.

"Famous Psychopathic Killers," Healthy Place, https://www.healthyplace.com/ personality-disorders/psychopath/famous-psychoaths-you-wouldnt-want-to-run-across.

Feynman, Richard, The Character of Physical Law, The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA and London, 2017.

Frede, Dorothea "Pleasure and Pain in Aristotle's Ethics," in Kraut, Richard, ed., The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.: Malden, MA, Oxford, UK, 2006.

Frey, Ulrich J., Stormer, Charlotte, Willfuhr, Kai P., "Essential Building Blocks of Human Nature," Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2011.

Freud, Sigmund, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Internationaler Psychoanalytischep Verlag, G.M.B.H.: Leipzig, Wein, Zurich, 1920.

Bilenky, S.M., Introduction to the Physics of Electroweak Interactions, Pergamon Press: Oxford, 2016.

"Fugue," Merriam-Webster Dictionary, (https://merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/fugue).

Glazer, Daniel, "A Neuroscientist Explains the Need for 'Empathic Citizens,'" Feb. 5, 2017, The Guardian Weekly [Podcast].

Goldberg, Dave, The Universe in the Rearview Mirror, Penguin Books: New York, 2013.

Goleman, Daniel, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than than IQ, Bantam Books: Toronto, 2012.

Goffman, Erving, Frame Analysis, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1974.

Golding, William, Lord of the Flies, Faber and Faber, Ltd.: London, 1954.

Goldstein, Jay, "Dynamic Symmetry in Fine Art Sculpture," May 22, 2017, YouTube.

Gowan, John, www.johnagowan.org/tetralo.htm.

Greene, Brian, The Elegant Universe, Vintage Books: New York, 1999.

Guth, Alan, The Inflationary Universe, Perseus Publishing: New York, 1997.

Haidt, Jonathan, "The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail," in Nadelhoffer, Thomas, and Nahmias, Eddy, Moral Psychology, Wiley Blackwell: Malden MA and Oxford UK, 2010.

Handel, Stephen, "The Role of Empathy in Our Evolution," www.theemotion machine.com/empathy-and-evolution.

Hare, Robert, "Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)," http://UK.businessinsider.com/hare-psychopath-checklist-test-sociopath-2.

Herrman, Eric, "Does God Exist" Facebook Group.

Hobbs, Angie, "Philosopher Angie Hobbs on Beauty and Morality," www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/b04pc7w4.

Hooper, Dan, Nature's Blueprint, Smithsonian Books, Harper-Collins: New York, 2008.

Hursthouse, Rosalind, "The Central Doctrine of the Mean," (96-115), in Kraut, Richard, ed., The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.: Malden, MA, Oxford, UK, 2006.

Isaiah, 5:20, The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Text Edition: 2016. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

Jamison, Leslie, "Examining Empathy," The Lancet, www.thelancet.com/ journals/lancet/article/PII 50140-67.

Josephson, Michael, "Character – What Is It and Why Is It Important," http://josephsonbusinesethics.com/2015/02/character-what-is-it-and-why-is- it-important.

"Justifications, Excuses, and Mitigating Factors," www.legalmatch.com/ law-library/article/justifictions-excuses-and-mitigating-factors.html.

"Justification," Merriam Webster Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/justification.

"Justifiable Homicide," The Free Dictionary, https://legal-dictionary/thefreedictionary.com/justifiable+homicide.

Kano, Michiko, Fukudo, Shin, "The alexithymic brain: the neural pathways linking alexithymia to physical disorders," in "Biophysical Medicine," Jan. 9, 2013.

Kant, Immanuel, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, in Ellington, James W., transl., Hackett Publishing Co.: Indianapolis/Cambridge, 1993 [1785].

Keyghobadi, Rashmat, "Unveiling of the Ugly by the Beautiful," Feb. 2015, https://RashmatKeyghobadi.wordpress.com/tag/beauty-and-morality.

Keysers, C., and Perrett, D.I., "Demystifying social cognition: A Hebbian perspective," Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 501-507, 2004.

Kosmann-Schwartzbach, Yvette, "The Noether theorems: invariance and conservation laws in the Twentieth Century," Sources and Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2010.

Kowner R. "Facial asymmetry and attractiveness judgment in developmental perspective," J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1996;22:662–675. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.22.3.662 [PubMed].

Kraut, Richard, ed., The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.: Malden, MA, Oxford, UK, 2006.

Langlois, Judith, et al, "Beauty Standards Not Learned, but Innate," 1990, Psychology Science, 599.9, E785, 2011.

Lepore, Michael, "Does God Exist" Facebook Group.

Levi, Ken (a), "Becoming a Hit Man: Neutralization in a Very Deviant Career." Sage Journals, April 1, 1981.

Levi, Ken (b), Proving God Exists: Physics, Cosmology, and the Universal Mind, 2018, Smashwords, http://smashwords.com/books/view/774772.

Levi, Ken (c), Violence and Religious Commitment: Implications of Jim Jones and the People's Temple Movement, The Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park and London, 1982.

Lockwood, Patricia, "Neurocomputational Mechanisms of Prosocial Learning and Links to Empathy," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, August 2016.

Looking Glass University, "The Most Beautiful Idea in Physics – Noether's Theorem," YouTube, Sep. 23, 2005.

Maier-Katkin, Daniel, Stranger from Abroad, W.W. Norton and Co,: New York and London, 2010.

Mayne, Debbie, "7 Tips on Proper Handshake Etiquette," The Spruce [Internet], Jun. 2018.

Mercer, Hugo, and Sperber, Dan, The Enigma of Reason, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 2017.

Miller, William Ian, Eye for an Eye, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2005.

Montaigne, Michel de, Les Essais, J. Balsamo, C. Magnien-Simonin & M. Magnien (eds.) (with "Notes de lecture" and "Sentences peintes" edited by Alain Legros), Paris, "Pléiade", Gallimard, 2007. The Essays are based on the 1595 published version

"Moral Relativism," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/ moral-re.

McAuliffe, Katherine, Blake, Peter R., Warneken, Felix, "Do Kids Have a Fundamental Sense of Fairness," in Scientific American, August 23, 2017.

Nash, Jay Robert, World Encyclopedia of 20th Century Murders, Paragon House: New York, 1989 (1992).

Newman, Tim, "Brain's Empathy Center Identified," Medical News Today (online), 16 August, 2016.

Nietzsche, Friedrich, Beyond Good and Evil, Hollingdale, R.J., transl., Penguin Classics: New York, 2003 (1886).

Numbeo, "Crime Index for Country 2018 Midyear," www.numbeo.co/crime- rankings-by-country.jsp.

"Pain," Merriam-Webster Dictionary, (https://merriam-webster.com/medical/ dictionary/pain).

Pappas, Stephanie, "Why Is Symmetry So Sexy? It Has Nothing to Do with Health," LiveScience [Internet], August 12 2012.

Payne, Wayne, 1985, "A Study of Emotion: Developing Emotional Intelligence," doctoral thesis.

Penrose, Roger, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, Jonathan Cape: London, 2004.

Perrett, Daniel, Burt, Michael, Penton-Voak, Ian S., Lee, Kieran J., Rowland, Duncan A., Edwards, Rachel, "Symmetry and Human Facial Attractiveness." in Perrett, David, et al, Evolution and Human Behavior, Elsevier Science, Inc.: Amsterdam, 1999.

Plato, "Philebus," in Dialogues, vol. 4, Segal, Eric., transl., Bantam Books: New York, 2006 (4th Century, B.C.).

Plato, "Thrasymachus," in The Republic, vol. 3, Jowett, Benjamin., transl., Project Gutenberg eBook, 2008 (4th Century, B.C.).

"The Predictive Power of Symmetry," YouTube.

"Psychopath vs. Sociopath: What's the Difference?," www.healthyplace.com/ personality-disorders/psychopath/psychopath-vs-sociopath.

Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1971.

Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. John K. Ryan, Image Books: New York, 1960 (397-400).

Shakespeare, William (a), "MacBeth," The Modern Library: New York, 1940 (1606).

Shakespeare, William (b), "The Merchant of Venice," The Modern Library: New York, 1940 (1598).

Shakespeare, William (c), "Othello," The Modern Library: New York, 1940 (1603).

Shakespeare, William (d), "Richard III," The Modern Library: New York, 1940 (1593).

Shakespeare, William (e), "The Tempest," The Modern Library: New York, 1940 (1611).

"Spiderman Hailed Hero after Rescuing Child Dangling from Balcony," May 28, 2018, Msnbc.com.

"Statement on Human Rights," American Anthropologist, vol. 49, no. 4, p. 542, 1947.

Stevens, Alison Pearce, "What Makes a Pretty Face?," Science News for Students, Dec, 2, 2016.

Stevens, Francis L., Hurley, Rubin A., Taber, Katherine H., Hayman, L. Anne, "Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Unique Role in Cognition and Emotion," Journal of Neuropsychlogy, vol. 23, issue 2, 1 April, 2011.

Sumner, William Graham, Folkways, Ginn and Co.: Boston, 1906.

Sweatman, Will, "Symmetry for Dummies: Noether's Theorem," Hackaday [Internet], Oct. 22, 2018.

"Symmetry and Balance," www.editsizement.neb.gov/lesson-plan/symmetry- and-balance.

Than, Ker, "Symmetry in Nature: Fundamental Fact or Human Bias?, LiveScience [Internet]. Dec. 21, 2005.

Than, Ker, "Symmetrical Bodies Are More Beautiful to Humans," August, 18, 2008, NatGeo News [Internet].

Vannelli, Ron, The Evolution of Human Sociability: Desires, Fears, Sex and Society, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York, 2015.

Van Drusen, David, "Natural Law, the Lex Talionis, and the Power of the Sword," Liberty University Law Review: Vol. 2, Iss. 3, Article 14.

Warneken, Felix and Tomasello, Michael, "The roots of human altruism," British Journal of Psychology, 2009.

Watanabe, Shigeru and Kosaki, Yutaka, "Evolutionary Origin of Empathy and Inequality Aversion," in Watanabe, Shigeru; Hofman, Michel A.; and Shimizu, Toru, eds., Evolution of the Brain, Cognition, and Emotion in Vertebrates, (273-299), Springer Books: Tokyo, 2017.

Wattles, Jeffrey, "C.S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft, and the Sequences: Truth, Goodness, and Beauty," A New Philosophy of Living [Internet], Jan. 22, 2015.

"What does moral absolutism say about ethics and morality?," www.compellingtruth.org/moral-absolutism.html.

Widdison, Geoffrey, "What Are the Central Arguments for and Against Moral Relativism?", Quora [Internet], Nov. 2, 2016.

Wikipedia, "India_Herodotus," [Internet].

Wood, Janice, "Scans Show Psychopaths Have Brain Abnormalities," Psych Central [Internet], Nov. 5, 2012.

Young, Charles M., "Aristotle's Justice," in Kraut, Richard, ed., The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.: Malden, MA, Oxford, UK, 2006.

Young, Julian, "Friedrich Nietzsche, A Philosophical Biography," Julian Young, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2010.

Zimbardo, Phillip, "The Pathology of Imprisonment," Society, 9, 4-8, 1975.

# ABOUT THE AUTHOR

I grew up in Boston, moved to Ann Arbor, where I received my Ph.D. in Sociology at the University of Michigan, then moved again to San Antonio, where I taught Sociology at the University of Texas. I am the author of three books:

Violence and Religious Commitment: Jim Jones and the People's Temple Movement, about the suicide and murder of over 900 members of the People's Temple Church in the Jonestown massacre.

Proving God Exists: Physics, Cosmology, and the Universal Mind, about evidence for God, based, not on faith, or mysticism, or religion, but on hard science.

The Moral Symmetry of Good and Evil, the current book, about how the science of symmetry not only pervades all of physics, nature, biology, and art, but also determines good and evil in everyday life.

In addition, I have published several articles on violence, crime, and delinquency, including "Becoming a Hit Man" (Sage Publications), which has since been cited in 99 other books and articles

