Humans are destined to live in society, and to be able to live with each other, it is unavoidable to find a common denominator. This common denominator is Ethics, which is the exclusive capacity of the human being to decide between right and wrong.

According to Aristotle, Ethics is the exclusive quality of the human act, because “man (the human being) has this characteristic that sets him appart from all other animals: that only him discerns between right and wrong, fair and unfair, and all the feelings of the same category, which end up contituting the basis of family and State.”

Good and evil is not equivalent to “convenient or inconvenient”. Thus, it is possible that we must decide to choose good even when this might mean that we have a damage or disadvantage because of it.

But Ethics has an even more solid aspect, dignity, the ability the person has to be “the Lord of its own deeds”, as Kant would say. The dignify of the person is the base of the current “Human Rights Declaration”.

In this way, dignity constitutes the ability a person has of being the master of its own deeds. This necessarily implies freedom. Only a free person can be Master and Lord of Himself.

Now, in order to be free and Lord of our own deeds, we must exersice virtue, that is, the pursuit of good. If this is not pursued, the person will be subdued by its own passions and would cease to be free, contradicting its dignity. Specifically, Aristotle said that “without virtue (the human being) is the most perverse and fierce, because it only has the brutal impulses of hunger and love.”

This Mastery, this freedom, is exercised by confronting extreme situations that might have control over own own actions. In this sense, Dr. Victor Frankl, who went through the most terrible humilliations in the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II, tells us in his book “The Man in Search of Sense”, that: “The people like us, who endured the concentration camps, remember men and women that would walk from barrack to barrack consoling others, giving them the only loaf of bread they had. They may have been few in numbers, but offered proof that everything can be taken from you, but one thing: the last of human freedoms – the capacity to choose the personal attitud towards a series of circumstances – to decide its own way”.

Dr. Frank continues, based on his own experience, “even when conditions such as lack of sleep, deficient nurture or other intellectual tensions could lead us to believe that the recluses would be obligated to react in a certain way, in a last analysis it is evident that the new prisoner personality exposed by each one of us was an intimate decision, and not only a product of the influence of the camp.”

Ethical decisions do not depend on science or technology, they depend on a more intimate and sublime condition: our internal freedom, a quality exclusive of the human being, to decide between good and evil.

Precisely because of this, all human beings, even science and technology, must be oriented by ethics, because it is Ethics which will give them the nature of human actions.

The “Declaration of Human Rights” was not based upon science or technology, nor was the will of declaring the human life as inviolable. Science and technology many times hold opposite positions.