Now, how does one judge whether certain particular actions are moral or immoral? Again, one focuses on the criterion, assurance that life will continue, and the evolutionary stages of ethical development. Behavior is moral, is ethical within any phase if it assures man in general his life, if it assures that the mass of mankind will, until natural death, have the opportunity to grow, and if it is typical of how man should believe at that stage, and if it is directed toward, or directs man toward a higher level of development. According to this, the authoritarian behavior of Hitler was not moral. Though he lifted the Germans of the Weimar Republic above survival, and promised that through Nazism they would be safe, he did not give them safety, nor did he aid them to belong, or to gain esteem.

The authoritarianism of Nasser, on the other hand, and of some of the present leaders may be quite different. Nasser’s efforts seem directed toward lifting the mass of Egyptian humanity toward a higher level, and certain other African leaders seem to be attempting to improve the lot of their people. One may argue, but what of Nasser’s ‘on again, off again’ attacks on Iraq, and what of Nkrumah’s tactics in suppressing his opposition. This, the higher level person does not condone, but this the higher level person should try to understand as a typical fox and lion tactic valued at the Machiavellian state of ethical development. And, one should recall what was said before about changing such behavior; one cannot change it by punishment, one can only contain it. Now, what of Castro? If behavior is fully moral, it respects human life, and the higher level person will see the Cuban executions as immoral. These same executions will not be so seen by those in the throes of the Machiavellian ethic. The confiscation of property is a very touchy subject, but according to this theory, the higher level person would see that this is a moral act, maybe not the best means to the end, but nevertheless moral, because one must keep in mind that the large mass of Latin America are reaching for a higher life, movement blocked to a considerable degree by the privileged few. Would that man did not have to use such means to progress, but the theory says this must be, unless the privileged few willingly give up their privileges, and this they seem rarely to do.

According to authorities, who studied the Korean war prisoners, the facts require, within this theory, an interpretation that our soldiers behaved, by and large, in a manner that was moral. These authorities say that the soldiers did not perceive the Korean war as a fight for survival, therefore, according to the theory they could not have behaved in a sacrificial fashion. Also, the authorities say they conformed to what the other prisoners were doing and sought material gain, food, cigarettes and pleasure through their behavior. Thus, phenomenologically, the prisoners remained at the level of moral development typical of most of our people, the "organization man" and the "status-seeker" levels. And, phenomenologically, they could not behave nobly because the nice treatment by the Chinese did not drive them back to the survival level. And finally, they could not all behave loyally, as they should, within a Machiavellian framework, because they did not see might-as-right operating in the war. We stopped at the Yalu.

It was probably moral for the electrical industry executives to have been in collusion to set prices. Our framework says that as man progresses, he must inevitably behave at a lower level before he moves higher. The theory suggests the behavior of those executives may be the final regressive convulsion of the Machiavellian ethic which values rugged individualism coupled with conformity to business ethics. But, let us understand that the theory does not excuse the behavior of such men. It tries only to explain it. If these limited examples of behavior are moral, what then is immoral beyond what has been mentioned?