Let’s consider the extreme examples of the 7 deadly sins, pride, anger envy, greed, gluttony, lust, and sloth. With fanfare the consequences of these are reported in the press daily. Typical examples are politicians making themselves guilty of fraud and corruption, “Three-year-old girl is brutally raped by a family member”, “Magistrate, prosecutor and police are arrested for unrightly influencing evidence!”, “Planet Earth is imploding and subsequently dying due to mankind’s irresponsible exploitation and overconsumption!”

The story of the seven deadly sins is endless. In fact, all of us are guilty in some way. We self-sabotage, hurt others, and the environment through harsh, unthoughtful, and destructive comments as well as actions. Maybe we are inclined to gossip, discarding of our garbage destructively, using company resources without permission for our own purposes, overindulge in food and drink, exploit our staff, bribe a traffic officer, not doing our bit to preserve nature and many more.  

A crucial question is how do we decide what displays sound character and ethical behaviour or not? There are 4 golden rules. The FIRST one is called the role exchanges test. This rule requires that we ask us to empathise with others that will be affected by an action we intend undertaking as well as the potential consequences they would face. If negative, we should place ourselves in their shoes. In short, we need to treat others as we want to be treated. If the consequences will be harmful to others, and the environment, we need to reconsider our choices and subsequent actions.

The SECOND rule focuses on the potential results of an action we take. We need to imagine what the outcomes would be if everyone in a situation like ours did the same. Would they be to the benefit of all? If not, our decision is “no”, the result should ideally be rejected as unacceptable if everyone decided to do the same as us. Consider the government decides to mine for gas in a wilderness area?

The THIRD test is whether we will still hold an opinion if the facts are intensified? If we for instance hold a very negative and judging viewpoint about AIDS patients for instance, irrespective of how a person contracted the disease, how would we react if a child of us is raped and gets AIDS? Our viewpoint would most probably change.

The FOURTH test is that we measure our actions against a universal principle as discussed above. An example is Mr. A who works in finance department of company B. Mr. A of the opinion that his boss is hard and unfair. He sometimes expects Mr. A to work overtime. One day during a lunch hour, Mr. and colleagues sit in a restaurant. Mr. A dominates the conversation by going on and on about how unreasonable his boss is and that he is not worthy of being called a manager. He should be demotivated! Is Mr. A not perhaps violating a universal principle!