Agreed. But you seem to be approaching this issue strictly from a governmental point of view. What about the ethics of the individual, deciding what is the right and wrong course of action to pursue in a dilemma? In this case, there is no dispute reconciliation system; there is only the man's ethical struggle in his own mind.
The right course of action for the individual is the one that will get him more of what he wants in the long run.
Again, you are clearly approaching this from a governmental perspective, ie- the government should limit peoples' desires as little as possible while upholding other principles. This does not speak much to individual ethics problems, such as "is it right to point and laugh at disabled people in public".
As goals differ, so do personal ethics. Personal ethics are a matter of personal goals and may be chosen by rolling dice if one wishes, provided they stay within the overarching ethical code.
It would be ethical to point and laugh at a disabled person in public since there is no right granting freedom from all confrontation. My personal ethic code would cause me to view the person who laughed as a very callous person and I would distance myself socially from that person up to, but not past, the ethically allowed amount as described by the overall collective ethical code. I wouldn't invite them to parties, I might try to convince them to have more compassion for others if I felt it was fruitful.
It need not have a particular goal in mind other than its own survival and prosperity. Indeed, that is what all primitive collectives strived for, since survival was often seriously in doubt.
The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the expanding needs of the bureaucracy. Is that what you want?
All of which is well and good but which does not answer the dilemma posed by your ethical system, in which you assume that cooperation is the inevitable result of a system that upholds the seeking of individual desires as its ultimate arbiter of ethics. Ayn Rand tried that bullshit, and all we got was an ethics system that doesn't actually teach us anything at all.
Cooperation is not the inevitable result or we would need no protection from betayal. Cooperation is deduced to be the most effective at the task of getting what one wants the majority of the time, given our current level of information. Rights then seek to increase the benefits.
"Designated lower limit"?
It is a guarentee to it's members of the minimum benefits they will gain through membership.
I must recant on my assessment of Saul's behaviour. Article 25.1 of the U.N. document I defered to clearly describes the least a member can have, and Lazarus is below that level. I must either state that Saul is unethical or recant the code. I choose the former until better information becomes available to me.
False analogy; you are assuming that the poor man has the same opportunities as a lazy coworker. You have not described the conditions of the society in which he lives sufficiently to make this judgment. You have not established whether there is a welfare system in place, you have not established the economic conditions in place, you have not established whether there are homeless shelters and soup kitchens available, etc.
My appologies for not being clear. I meant to compare Saul to the lazy coworker. He is a member of a group and doing the bare minimum required to retain membership. My sentence structure was poor.
That is in no way a justification of your assumption that you will always get better results without coercion.
I concede this point indefinitly. I will attempt to provide evidence for my assumption.
And how does one decide whether a want is sufficiently important to be a right?
One decides whether a want is sufficient to be a right through reason and observation. One takes the most accurate information available and attempts to find the best balance between the wants of all members.
Was it ethical to have black slavery back when the majority of society wanted to own black slaves? You could argue that the slaves' rights were being violated, but who decides whether their wants are important enough to be considered rights?
It was not ethical, they were in error. Their information was incomplete.
I'm still curious if your concept of rights includes obligating people to act on behalf of others' rights: a question which you neatly sidestepped in your response.
Yes, my concept of rights includes obligating people to act on behalf of others' rights.
