The Six Pillars of Character 622.5
I’ve talked before about the importance of making moral judgments. The idea is not to categorize or label others’ character but to clarify personal moral obligations in terms of specific values and attributes that make us better people and produce a better society.
The most effective framework I know is built on six core ethical values called the Six Pillars of Character: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. Thus, if you want to be a person of character:
First, be worthy of trust. Live with honor and integrity. Be honest. Keep your promises. Do what’s right even when it costs more than you want to pay.
Second, treat others with respect. Live by the Golden Rule. Avoid physical violence, verbal abuse, prejudice, and all acts that demean or offend human dignity.
Third, be responsible. Exercise self-discipline and self-restraint. Do your best. Be self-reliant and accountable for the consequences of your choices.
Fourth, strive to be fair. Don’t cheat. Be open and consistent. Don’t jump to conclusions. Be careful when making judgments about others.
Fifth, be caring, kind, empathetic, and charitable. Avoid selfishness. Do what you can to improve the lives of others.
Sixth, be a good citizen. Do your share to make your community better. Protect the environment. Participate in democratic processes. Play by the rules. Obey laws unless you have a compelling conscientious objection.
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
Subscribe
Comments
Thanks, Michael. I'm sharing this with everyone on my mailing list. We all could use pasting this to the bathroom mirror and reading it every single day. Keep up the great work.
Posted by: Stacey | June 12, 2009 11:29 AM
I have a little problem with your last sentence: "Obey laws unless you have a compelling conscientious objection."
This seems to me to be the perfect alibi for those people who think they have the right to break the law because they feel they have a good reason. Case in point, the Tiller murder in Kansas. A right-to-life proponent thinks the end justifies the means and takes a life because he has a "conscientious objection" to abortionists and has now done his bit for society to prevent such acts -- all with permission from you.
Posted by: Roy York | June 16, 2009 10:17 AM
Roy,
I think you misunderstand the concept of "conscientious objection." Rosa Parks conscientiously objected to a law she felt was unjust by refusing to sit in the back of a bus where blacks at that time were supposed to sit. She did not kill the bus driver.
Gandhi pioneered the mass disobedience movement by organizing nonviolent protests to British rule in India. He did not call for mass slaughter of the oppressors.
Martin Luther King Jr. championed civil rights with nonviolent boycotts, sit-ins, and marches even in the face of the worst methods of violence waged against him.
A right-to-life proponent advocating conscientious objection would in all likelihood hold a vigil outside an abortion clinic, organize a protest march, blockade the clinic, or countless other nonviolent means. Shooting the abortion doctors would be murder, not conscientious objection.
Posted by: John | June 18, 2009 11:03 AM