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

arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Reply via email to