According to the theory presented, there should be an ethical system associated with each need level. Therefore, let us propose that the lowest level of ethical behavior is the sacrificial level. An ethic based on "thou shalt suffer in this life to prove thyself worthy of everlasting life." And, let us propose that the values in this ethic are the values of denial, abstinence, modesty, piety, deference, self-sacrifice, no self-indulgence and harsh self-discipline, and let us ask, does it or has it existed? It is not the ethic of the Hindu mystic, the Yurok Indian, the Christian martyr, the Calvinist disciple, the Shaker? There seems to be some evidence that this is so, but what causes it to be associated with the survival need level?

Does the sacrificial ethic arise in the perception that life is precarious, that one lives in a world not made for the experience of pleasure? A perception based on the reality of an endless struggle with unsatisfied physiological needs? Is it, that in order to explain in this painful reality to himself, man conceives that it is meant for him to suffer in order to prove himself worthy of pleasure in after-life? Does he create rules for proper sacrificial behavior to assure himself that his behavior will lead to his heavenly goal? Are these the rules which, as he sees it, prescribe the price he must pay for this heavenly life? Is the price which man must pay, at the survival level, no pleasure while living? But, does the time come when some man questions this price, and does the time come when some ask: Why can’t one have some enjoyment in this life? When this question emerges in the mind of man, is the sacrificial ethic doomed to decay, and is it readied for discard?

Possibly so, but the ethical behavior is not gone; for the theory says man plods on to another level, now slipping, now falling in his quest for his goal. When man casts aside the inhuman aspects of the sacrificial ethic, is he charged with the energy derived from automatic satisfaction of the survival needs? Does a feeling of power surge through him, and does this power generate the might-is-right, authoritarian-submission ethical system? Possibly it does.

It is with descriptive design that one proposes the second level of ethical behavior be called the Machiavellian system. Machiavelli’s time on earth coincided with western man’s breakout from the dark ages, a time when occidental man started his slow climb from the survival level of behavior to higher levels of operation. And, it is perhaps more than psychological chance that we call this period the Renaissance.

It was indeed are birth for man. Man was reborn to be human, not just another grubbing animal. It is probably more than chance, also, that western man’s greatest period of sacrificialness disappeared with the rapid increase in industry and commerce of this period in history.

History suggests to us that the few, and there were few in the beginning, who were able to gain their freedom from survival problems, not only surged almost uncontrollably forward into a new ethical system, but also dragged after them to the safety level, those unable to free themselves from the burden of staying alive. And history suggests that the few became the authoritarians, the many became those who submitted. Did the many accept the might-is-right of the few because by such acceptance they were assured survival? It may have been, and may be so.

The Machiavellian system, within the theory of ethical evolution presented, is based on the prerogatives of the ‘haves,' the duties of the ‘have-nots. 'Fealty and loyalty, service and noblesse oblige are the cornerstones of this ethical system. Assured of the safety of their position through fief and vassalage, the ‘haves’ sail forth on their power. The Machiavellian morality is, according to this conception, founded on the right way to behave as dictated by those in power. It is a system of values which are acted out in detail by all players. Each is assigned his role and each gets security so long as he stays within his role.