I think part of what prohibits this is looking for a set of rules rather than a system of rights. The reason is, there is no way for a system of rules regarding human action can avoid conflicting rules, and conflicting rules are not acceptable. But rights are different since they are absolute in their logical structure, yet there is no logical problem with a conflict of rights and their resolution.BlindedWantsToSee wrote: ↑February 1st, 2018, 4:12 pm I'm afraid you are missing the point of what this post is trying to say. This code of righteousness has nothing to do with judging others or even oneself. This modal code has nothing to do with religion either. Universal righteousness is concerned with answering questions like: what is justice, precisely? What makes an action right or wrong?
The code states what justice is. Justice is equality of rights, and in the treatment of, all living beings, without exceptions. No living being is capable of living righteously because of the nature of their bodies and minds. Conclusion is that life itself is unjust, unrighteous, wrong, and evil because the very nature of life prevents all living beings from living in a peaceful, fair, righteous way, a way that does not result in harm to any sentient being.
Justice also inevitably involves the allocation of scarce resources, which is founded upon a system of rights and often must be analyzed using praxeology. Such analysis demonstrates that socialism is a gross violation of justice, for example.