Source No.

1
Black, Donald. The Social Structure of Right and Wrong. San Diego: Academic Press, 1993.
Print.
Black, Donald. "Taking Sides." Black, Donald. The Social Structure of Right and Wrong. San
Diego: Academic Press, 1993. 125-143. Print.

Donald Black is University Professor of the Social Sciences at the University of Virginia.
Black received his Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Michigan in 1968, and he taught at
Yale and Harvard before coming to Virginia in 1985. He is a theoretical sociologist with many
publications in the sociology of law, morality, and conflict. Professor Black's work has
increasingly expanded to include such projects as a theory of the differential success of ideas, a
theory of scienticity, a theory of scientific theory, and a theory of the behavior of supernatural
beings such as God. Black is also the founder of pure sociology, a distinctive theoretical
approach that explains human behavior with its social geometry.
His book, The Social Structure of Right and Wrong, was awarded both the 1994 Theory
Prize and a Distinguished Book Award of the American Sociological Association. It was
published in 1993 and revised in 1998. In a section of the book, called Taking Sides, Black
explains how everyone takes one side of a conflict and acts as an informer, adviser, advocate,
ally, or surrogate of a principle party. Also, that their social space, where they come from and
who they are around, predicts whose side they choose. The target audience for this book may be
college students or sociologists trying to understand the concepts of right and wrong and the
explanations of social conflict. Also, Black seems to target many lawyers or people who
intervene with the study of law and how social conflict interacts with them.

Black begins this section of the book saying, In the simple societies studied by
anthropologists the number of partisans on each side frequently decides the winner: Might makes
right (125). This makes sense when talking about choosing between rights and wrong in a group
because when there are more people telling someone do to something, or act a certain way, then
they are more likely to follow the crowd than to go off on their own. He then gives examples as
to where Might makes right has occurred in the world such as New Guinea, Pakistan, Africa,
America, ect. He uses these examples and the views and actions of partisans to predict the
behavior from one case to another.
Other quotes: Each adversary effectively creates a gravitational field that attracts third
parties with a strength proportional to their nearness to them and their distance from the
opponent (126).
Partisanship is a joint function of the social closeness and superiority of one side and the
social remoteness and inferiority of the other. Those with the most intimacy and social stature
attract the most support (127).
Analysis: This section of the book really focuses on the effects of social distance on
partisan behavior. It asks questions such as whom do they support, are they member of the same
family, friends, or strangers, and how much support do they give? Going back to right and wrong
I really felt this piece helps to understand how influence of the third party can play a role in
someone choosing wrong and right. Black provides evidence that there have been many
instances where cultures and different groups have either gravitated toward each other or became
opponents based on their standing within the group.
This piece was difficult to read at first because I did not necessarily know what I
searching for, but once I grasped the concept and linked his information to my inquiry question it

became easier. He uses large words that I needed to google and also the examples he used were
ones I was unfamiliar with so I also googled those as well. This section can be useful for anyone
who questions the relationship of people and how different groups get along based on their
morals and understanding of what it right and wrong.

Source No. 2
Hauser, Marc D. "What's Wrong?" Hauser, Marc D. Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our
Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006. 1-55.
Print.
Marc D. Hauser is an American evolutionary biologist and a researcher in primate
behavior, animal cognition and human behavior. Hauser's research lies at the intersection of
evolutionary biology and cognitive neuroscience. It was aimed at understanding the processes
and consequences of cognitive evolution. He studied at the University of California- Los Angeles
and also at Bucknell University. His research interests included: studies of language evolution,
the nature of moral judgments, the development and evolution of mathematical representations,
comparative studies of economic-like choice, the precursors to musical competence, and the
nature of event perception. In his work, he widely known for his research with monkeys and also
the internet-based 'The Moral Sense Test' in which the participant is presented with a series of
hypothetical moral dilemmas and is asked to offer a judgment regarding each one.
Hausers novel, Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and
Wrong, is a 2006 book in which he develops an empirically grounded theory to explain morality
as a universal grammar. He draws evidence from evolutionary biology, moral and political
philosophy, primatology, linguistics, and anthropology. Throughout the novel he presents cases
where people are to make moral decisions based on the facts around them. He calls them
artificial moral dilemmas. In the first part of the novel called, Whats Wrong? He introduces
the beginnings of human error and where the central thinking of the human mind is in terms of
right and wrong. The audience that Hauser seems to want to target are psychology students or

psychologists. Perhaps he could also be reaching out to lawyers, religious studies, and teachers
for the idea of right and wrong all coexist with these ranges of professions.
Hauser writes, Emotions interfere with clearheaded thinking. An extreme version of this
perspective is that there are no moral dilemmas, because for every apparent conflict involving
two or more competing obligations, there is only one option (8). In his quote he makes sense as
to why an individual will always pick right or wrong. We may know what is right, but because
emotions get in the way, say for an example, Hitler making someone fearful, then they will
choose wrong because Hitler is making them feel inferior. Anyone in our lives can play the role
of Hitler and make us feel emotional which will determine if we chose right or wrong. He then
continues with a quote on a sign outside a church in Yorkshire, England that reads, If you have
conflicting duties, one of them isnt your duty. Meaning, that we know which the right duty is,
but it is our free-will to choose which action we will actually go along with. The other is simply
based on emotion that is making us believe it is the right choosing.
Other quotes: The feeling of moral conflict comes from the fact that the person
evaluating the situation isnt thinking clearly or rationally, seeing the options, the causes, and the
consequences. The person is using his gut rather than his head (9).
Our emotions dont provide the right kind of process for arbitrating between choice,
even if they tilt us in one direction once we have made up our minds (9).
As Feud suggested, one can imagine that children map good or permissible onto what
parents tell them to do, and ma bad or forbidden onto what parents tell them not to do (17).
These judgments are always made, consciously r unconsciously, in reference to a set of
culturally specific values (31).

Analysis: The authors first chapter is very detailed in how he thinks where moral
decision is decided with the human mind. The read is fairly easy. There are some people in the
chapter that may need to be googled, but the wording is easy to follow. Also, what I do love
about his teaching method of right and wrong is the amount of examples and dilemmas he
presents in the chapter for the reader to really understand what he is saying. They are daily life
examples that a regular person like you and me might have to face in the future or already have.

Source No. 3
Chan, Marc K. H. "When Groups are Wrong and Deviants are Right." European Journal of
Social Psychology (2010): 1-7. Print.

Marc K. H. Chan is a professor in the School of Psychology at the University of

Queensland in St. Lucia, Australia.
In his academic article titled, When Groups are wrong and Deviants are Right, he
researches the question, how do group members respond when their group wrongfully punishes a
group member? He looked at two experiments where participants were presented with an ingroup member who argued for group change on moral or scientific grounds. In this he discusses
the implications of groups rejecting or embracing change, and there effects on the evaluation of
wrongfully accused deviants. Chan gives the audience background information about the two
groups that he will be researching at first. The remaining of the article is the actual data from the
experiment which gives all the information on how the experiments were conducted. Then, of
course it follows with the conclusion and analysis. The audience that Chan is presenting this
article to is scholars of higher level either studying psychology, sociology, or religious studies,
for religion is also brought into his research.
In beginning his academic article he tells the story of Galileo, a well-known scientist,
who stood strong with his own beliefs despite the crowds beliefs. He says, Indeed, the story of
the mistreated, undervalued and misunderstood geniuses, whistleblowers, superheroes or
ordinary people who are ultimately vindicated is not just a popular them in literature and cinema,
but also determines our evaluation of politicians and freedom writers (1). He then uses the
example of Nelson Mandela who went through torture and imprisonment for standing up for

what he believed in. He tells how as a society we admire the people who go out on their own and
make a name for themselves, but that we also appreciate those who accept group influence. In
the long run though, the deviant is always the one who is wrong in society. This is how wrong
becomes blurred into right. When the society as a whole believes in one thing, then the deviant
says the opposite, the society wins because of their numbers. Like being in Galileos position,
society knew he was right, but because they did not want change or to be proven wrong they all
told him he was wrong.
Other quotes: In the face of evidence that the deviant was clearly right and the group
was wrong, one possible outcome is that group members negativity towards the deviant would
be eliminated- given that the deviant was right, it would be morally wrong to continue to mistreat
them, regardless of group opinion or its current treatment of the wrongfully accused (2).
Analysis: The academic article was more of a scientific research paper than an actual
journal with written information. There is a lot of calculations and data that go along with the
paper and the information given. What made the paper very easy to read was how Chan kept
incorporating Galileos example into the two groups he was researching which made it more
relatable. He also explains the experiment in easy terms that makes it easy to understand and
how the experiment was conducted. I recommend this article if you are looking for cut-to-thechase data and want proof of how groups treat a deviant in society.