[dredmorbius]

Re your final sentence, there's a possible third option (though your second has merits): coming up with both rules (law) and guidance (rights, ethics, morality) based on what improves the overall common weal.

Another archaic concept, I fear, most days.

[lucideer]

I guess I was conflating the latter two...

In my mind:

ethics = definition of what improves the common weal

law (should)= enforcement of said ethics

[dredmorbius]

Hrm. I'm wondering now if there's a possible ethical case for actions which don't improve the common weal. Or how to resolve conflicts between short-term present vs. long-term future outcomes, or other conflicts -- say, you classic Trolley Problem.

I also wanted to note that your dismissal of Fundamental Rights is a good point. I'm finding far more agreement with the Pragmatists (Dewey, James, etc.) than various Natural / Fundamental Rightists. If only because any idiot can jump up and claim "This is My Fundamental Right" and ... all rational discussion stops.