On 09/18/2016 09:08 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
anything that's "rights-based" is laden with the implicit and dangerous expectation (and associated abdication of responsibility) that *someone else* will provide for all your needs (defined clearly as "your rights"), or, even worse, that you are ENTITLED to either demand or even worse than demanding just merely TAKE what is declared and laid out in whatever document uses the word "rights".
unfortunately, "rights" have been "fought for" for so long that it's become a form of indoctrination, rarely if ever challenged.
There also are duties, yes. I agree that rights are not enough. One can argue though that duties follow from the rights.
Of course the basis/axioms of ethics do not need to be rights.
someone who *cannot* derive (or phrase) their complaint in terms of how *even their complaints* will benefit the goal is not someone that i seek to be on the team associated with the EOMA initiatives.
the *only* thing i will ever wish to hear - if there is a complaint - is: "i wish to make a complaint! you are not fulfilling the objectives of the EOMA initiative!"
anything other than that *will* be assessed as to whether responding to it is going to hinder or help the EOMA initiative.
did i make it clear that i am quite pathological about goals? i'm not sure if i said it clearly enough for it to be believed.
Low-level ethics also run the risk of having multiple interpretations.
good!! that's called "creativity"!!
l.
Well, in a larger organization some simple complaints are easier to support and assess without disputes when there is a high-level policy. But you are not a large organization, so you don’t need one right now anyway.