Many years ago, sitting in judgment of an intern who had behaved unbecomingly, I commented that his conduct had been 'immature.' A colleague of mine, whom I held in great esteem, observed that immaturity is not a valid reason to criticize or judge a human act. I was deeply impressed by his observation, and set out to clarify this subject. My search of the pertinent literature not having been productive, I had to define myself the criteria to describe and specifically criticize a given human act.
I reached the conclusion that there are five criteria, no less and no more, which are utilized all over the world, in all cultures and epochs, for human societies to judge and punish an unbecoming act, as defined by each society to fit the need to protect its functioning, i.e., to keep public order. It became clear to me that an act may be judged by more than one of such five criteria, and that in the case of one of these criteria, the punishment is meted out by the transgressor himself, with no need for the society to intervene. Moreover, the punishment may be as mild as becoming the subject of gossip, which is the simplest way a society has developed to keep it unblemished.
The criteria will be exposed and analyzed here in the briefest possible manner.

1.- Common Sense: This is the simplest of the criteria. For instance, if somebody enters troubled waters with no absolute need (like having the explicit intention of committing suicide), or bets against impossible odds, people will comment that such a person lacks 'horse sense' or that his behavior was illogical. This is the only situation where the culprit punishes himself.

2.- Etiquette, or Aesthetical Behavior: Unpleasant manners, as defined by a given society, give rise to criticism and complaining. As a result, the culprit is shunned by the social circle.

3.- Ethics: Guilds or professional associations, religious denominations, political parties, family circles, political groups, or any other organizations, create their own rules; the members are penalized by that segment of society if they don't follow suit.

4.- Morals: These may differ among peoples of different countries and may change with the passing of time. Even in a given society at a given moment there may be disagreement on a given subject. Killing is considered universally immoral, except in self-defense or in war. Adultery and homosexuality, on the other hand, are variably criticized by different societies, at different times, and even by different groups of individuals within the same society. An immoral act may lead to various types of punishment, depending on its presumed character and gravity.

5. The law: This criterion is the most pervading and important of all five. Many immoral acts-like killing not in self-defense-are considered unlawful, and law-breakers are therefore punished with fines, imprisonment-or worse. And not every unlawful act is immoral, such as passing through a red traffic light. A member of a Mafia group might kill the 'wrong colleague' of another group. He would be criticized by his 'colleagues' as having behaved stupidly-that is, non-sensically. He might have compromised the 'ethical' rules of the Mafia in general or of his own group in particular. Not all members of society at large will judge him as having committed an immoral act, while the legal machinery is liable to prosecute him with variable degrees of zeal, for having committed a criminal act.

This is now the place to remind the reader about the letter criticizing the experimental procedure on abandoned children. As the author of the critical letter had stated that the procedure had been "unethical, to say the least," suggesting therefore that it had even transgressed moral principles, I answered with words that were intended to mean that the experiment had been conducted according to a logic (common sense) scientific protocol, with decorum (respectfully), and according to legal procedure. As for morals, we had actually saved those children from almost certain death and had gone as far as providing for their survival.