A Set of Moral Principles                                             Mehl

  These are not particular moral judgments or even moral rules for these are more specific and related to certain classes of action, or to certain social roles.  For example: "You should not leave your infant daughter alone for so long," is a specific moral judgment.  In defense of this judgment we can appeal to a more general moral rule applicable to parents or other caregivers: "Never leave small children unattended for long."  If we are to defend this rule we can appeal to a still more general moral principle: Do no Harm; we should not allow unnecessary harm to befall small children. 

  The Prima Facie Restriction: These principles hold "other things being equal;" that is, they hold unless there is a serious conflict with other moral considerations.  They are  not absolute principles, but that does not mean that they are not very strong principles.  In fact, the burden of argument is on the person who would violate one of these principles; he or she must provide argument that the violation is necessary in a particular case.

  The Principles

  1) Do no Harm (physical, psychological or developmental) 
   The obligation or duty of Non-maleficence

  2) Do Good
    The obligation or duty of Beneficence

  3) Do not Violate Another's Freedom
    The obligation or duty to Respect Persons as Autonomous

  4) Do not be Unfair
    The obligation or duty to observe the requirements of Justice

    Justice: But what does Justice mean?  Justice means making judgments among or across individuals that are consistent according to a standard, it means being impartial--other things being equal.  But what is our standard for these judgments?  Whatever it is it should be applied consistently, without partiality.
   Second, in a broader social sense, justice has to do with making comparative judgments regarding the distribution of social benefits and burdens.  There remains the question of the standard for making these judgments. 

Possible standards:

                a) Egalitarian: everybody gets equal benefits and burdens

                b) Socialist: benefits distributed according to need, burdens according to ability

                c) Contribution or Merit: benefits distributed according to deserved/earned contribution to the community/institution

                d) Libertarian: benefits not distributed, unless voluntarily so; I am only entitled to the fruits of my labor.

Metaethics

Finally we can ask about the basis for these general principles; here we have reached the most general level of reflection often referred to as metaethics.  Briefly I would say that the principles of non-maleficence and beneficence are grounded in the fact that we are richly sentient creatures interested in being free from suffering and increasing our well-being.  The principle of respect for autonomy is grounded in the fact that we are rational and self-conscious creatures, we are persons, hence creatures with a measure of interest in our freedom and subjectivity.  Finally the principles of justice are grounded in the fact that we are social creatures; that we are sentient rational creatures that live together means that we are concerned about treatment relative to each other; what the content of justice comes to however is a matter of much controversy.