• willingness to inflict harm upon self in way of protecting others

• committed to overriding principles of Individual Rights & Safety, even when contrary to the law. (Legislators don't always think of everything. See Avoiding Error: Part IV: Final Words.)

• committed to particular ethical and/or legal principles as guides for all decision-making (assuming principles are caring and responsible)

• committed to what seems appropriate at the time
  (e.g., leave enough cookies for everyone to eat)

• committed to dictates only to avoid punishment
  (e.g., take a cookie when no one is watching)

   The above chart conveniently summarizes our capacity as humans at recognizing "morality."

   At the pinnacle is Selflessness, implicating a transcendental level of care and commitment to others that we either learn ad hoc as we grow older or somehow learn to discipline ourselves into. Selflessness is certainly not a behavior that we are born with.

   Next is Righteousness, implicating a commitment to Individual Rights (i.e., Human Rights and Animal Rights: we must address all conscious beings here, not just self-centered humans) as well as to Safety, protecting all life and quality of life. As professionals, we must realize that what we perceive as "right" or "best" may swiftly change once new, contradictory information — however subtle or remote — is taken into consideration. We must actively seek out and recognize those rare possibilities so that we may allow and effectively prepare for them, rather than idly assuming "that just won’t happen to ME!” For example, as professionals, always must we ask ourselves, "Am I completely aware of any potential for danger or suffering that may ensue? What preventative/preparatory steps ought to be taken before we go any further?” Compassion to protect from harm and/or eliminate ongoing suffering ALWAYS overrides laying even legal responsibility, at least for a moment. See Simpleminded error: Law vs. Right for a continued discussion.

   Before proceeding, recognize that Righteousness does not always implicate Selflessness. Though certainly at times the Right Decision is a Selfless one, such is not true in general. To make that point clear with a simple example: If the Right Choice were perpetually the Selfless Choice, we would be required to donate all our wages to charity and starve in the name of The Greater Good. A certain level of selfish behavior is necessary for survival.

   At this point it is also worthwhile to point out Thomas Jefferson's fixation on Man. The rights of men during Jefferson's era extended well beyond those of women. Only after a long struggle were women finally granted equality under the law. Similar statements hold, of course, for persons of African ancestry, Jews and other peoples around the world. Human history, our ever-continuing human saga, constitutes an ample record of our inherent stupidity and moral ignorance.

   Furthermore, we must point out that human tendency to focus on self and care for human life in preference to any other living creature. (Animal Rights were utterly nonexistent in Jefferson's lifetime.) Only today are all of Earth's other living creatures beginning to receive some consideration, care and protection. And why has it taken so long? Merely because they are of low intellect and lack the capacity to speak. Regardless of their low intellect, we must remember that they are still conscious and self-aware. What requisite level of stupidity could possibly sufficiently justify human apathy toward another consciously living creature? How low do you have to go? All conscious life deserves protection. See Simpleminded error: Choosing Apathy: Protection for a continued discussion. See also Vegetarians Are Right ... Killing is Wrong! and "Animals are RIGHT!”

   Next down is Principled, implicating particular rules that we prefer to always refer and adhere to. Many persons in society profess to be Principled morally, but very few always consult their supposed principles before carrying out their decisions. Though certainly this isn't altogether a bad thing, considering the countless decisions confronting us on a daily basis, it is here where many arguments begin: One person forgets (or is simply ignorant of) some particular principle and infringes upon another individual. That other individual then snaps back and quotes the principle violated.

   Obviously, most adult members of society lead their daily lives out on a moral level lying somewhere between the Principled and the Conventional, with some incidences of Righteousness and Selflessness thrown in. Most of us assume that we will always be able to recognize or know what is "right" or "best," but such is not true in general. If the Laws prescribing Right were all so obvious to us we would have no need for debating and writing them all down. Humans that we are, we prefer to idly wait and allow some unexpected chains of events to make plain the gaps in our personal stores of knowledge and remembered experiences.

   Finally, at the very bottom we have the Preconventional Level, which accurately characterizes those innate predispositions we are all born with — to take what we want, oblivious to the needs or wishes of those around us.

References and Links:

1. See the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration's Exhibit Hall: The Charters of Freedom: The Declaration of Independence at http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/declaration/declaration.html.

2. Moral Development and Behavior, 1976, by Thomas Lickona.

3. Essentials of Organizational Behavior (6th ed.), 1999, by Stephen P. Robbins:
   Click here for more from this author.

4. See Ethical Decision Making at the University of British Columbia's W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics, at http://www.ethicsweb.ca/resources/decision-making/index.html.

5. See also at this site Ethical decision: A Framework for Ethical Decision Making, Simpleminded error: Law vs. Right, Vegetarians Are Right ... Killing is Wrong!, Simpleminded error: Choosing Apathy: Protection and "Animals are RIGHT!”