“He is not in his right mind; he is talking nonsense and is stark mad.”
“The heart’s aye the part aye
That makes us right or wrang.”
“‘Oh,’ said Mr. Winkle the elder, ‘I hope you are well, sir.’ ‘Right as a trivet, sir,’ replied Bob Sawyer.”
CHAPTER VI
THE MEANING OF THE WORD “WRONG”
“The human mind is capable of having very many perceptions, and the more capable, the greater the number of ways in which its body can be disposed.” Spinoza, “Ethics,” Part II, Prop. 14.
Lexicographers are wont to state that “wrong” is the opposite of “right” in all of its principle senses, but as can be seen at a glance from the appended array,[18] this statement cannot be taken to imply that any such extensive list of significations as we exhibited in our analysis of “right” can be reproduced here. Indeed, in what respect “wrong” is the antonym of “right,” or, in other words, how far this pair of terms illustrates the law of reciprocal innervation, can be seen only from a detailed comparison of the two, as follows:—
| RIGHT | WRONG |
| Class A. | |
| The word “right” as descriptive of certain mathematical relationships and physical functions. | |
| Sub-class I. | |
| “Straight,” (a word in current usage) | negated by “Crooked,” Ex. I, (obsolete). |
| Sub-class II. | |
| “Direct” | No antonym |
| Sub-class III. | |
| “Immediately” | No antonym |
| Class B. | |
| “Right” as descriptive of the method (or object) by which the desired end can be obtained | negated by Examples 3 and 5; but only if we override the objection that “right” here usually refers to one specific method or object, while “wrong” can refer to any one of a number of unspecified things. |
| Class C. | |
| “Right” as descriptive of any statement that reports the facts; of any opinion or judgment that is correct; and of any person who judges, thinks, or acts in accordance with the facts or the truth about a matter | negated by Examples 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11, except for the difference just previously mentioned, and omitting examples 31-35 inclusive on p. 80. |
| Class D. | |
| “Right” as the distinctive epithet of the hand which is normally the stronger | No antonym |
| Class E. | |
| Legal “rights”; those claims and interests the establishment and protection of which may be secured by force and even violence | negated only with respect to some particular cases of “right” by Examples 8, 9, and 17. |
| Class F. | |
| Moral “rights” | negated by Examples 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17; but only in the same way that moral “right” is incompatible with legal “right.” |
| Class G. | |
| Unspecified and unrestricted liberties and privileges | negated restrictively by the single example of No. 18. |
| Class H. | |
| That which is most convenient, desirable, or favorable; conforming to one’s wish or desire; to be preferred, etc., | negated by Examples 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15. |
| Class I. | |
| “Right” signifying very, in great degree | No antonym |
This comparison obviously reveals no basis for the statement that “wrong” and “right” are complete antitheses to each other, at least in the fine sense that up is the opposite of down, in of out, or east of west. So that, if we accept the word “right” as descriptive of a behavior situation in which the dominant feature is the controlling and directing of human energies, the employment of technique to further man’s purposes, or the attainment of any “good” whatsoever, the word “wrong” cannot,—either according to the detailed list of its uses just presented, or according to the above scheme of its logical relationship to “right,”—be said to be the true antonym of that word. The law of reciprocal innervation does not, in its integrity, apply here.
How then shall we explain the fact that people so habitually say and feel that “wrong” is the opposite of “right,” if it cannot be admitted that antagonistic muscles are always employed in the thoughts and the acts to which these two words refer? Perhaps the following interpretation will answer. Logicians are accustomed to say that any universal proposition, any sweeping statement, such as, “Every swan is white,” or “No aliens need apply,” is contradicted by the admission that one single exception is to be allowed. But obviously, such logical contradiction, such admission of a lone but effective exception, is not equivalent to granting that “No swans are white,” or that “Every alien is requested to apply.” Nevertheless, the tradition among logicians is that with the granting of one such exception, the sweeping statement originally made is held to be untrue, and hence, false. In physiological terms (than which there are none more fundamental), contradiction is for the logician equivalent to a partial but effective inhibition of any fully developed action-tendency. When Plato would say, “You may all now come in to dinner,” but is deterred by seeing Diogenes muddying his feet in order to tread the more scornfully on the clean banquet floor, Plato’s action-pattern of wholesale, cordial invitation is suddenly interrupted. And, so far as Plato’s emotions are concerned, the need to make one important exception in his invitation, is very much like having to turn the whole company out of doors. This tendency for an emotional repugnance to blot out all sense of proportion is clearly illustrated in certain oft-repeated fables. The story of the involuntary guest who had not on a wedding garment, of the ninety and nine sheep, and of the rich young man are cases in point. Similar examples may be found in the behavior of any household. The vexed hostess is heard complaining that one little faux pas on the part of her serving-girl “completely spoiled the whole evening.” The sweet young thing whose lover arrives a quarter of an hour later than his appointment accuses him of being elsewhere enamoured to stay. The wife whose husband forgets only one of her twenty birthdays since their marriage often finds it impossible to overlook the single, unhabitual fault. It is not that such people crave or dote on perfection; they do nothing of the sort: it is only that their behavior mechanisms are unable to readjust quickly to another stimulus than the one which they have expected, and this failure to readjust releases energies by way of the viscera instead of along other and more pacific pathways.