In your first paragraph, you're assuming that the individual is the only proper "basic unit" of moral thought. But is that logically necessary?
The answer is, probably not. If we take an objectivist approach we must ensure that any philosophical principles are in accord with what we can observe of reality. In observing reality, we are immediately confronted by the principles of evolution, in which the individual is seen to be less important than the genetic chain of which he's a part. From that perspective, the highest moral good would center on the success of genetic lines, and thus in contrast to Ayn Rand's claim, observation tells us that we're not "an end in ourselves," but rather a means to the next generation's end.
Put another way, evolution tends to favor the strong over the weak, and on that basis we can justify a claim that the use of slaves for our long-term gain is morally justified.
The point is that the logic of "reality" as we can observe it, tends to be more amenable to moral principles that are not reliant on the concept of individual rights. Which takes us to your second paragraph:
Thus the concepts of rights, property, etc. could be said to derive naturally from men's wishes to deal with one another long term.
Again, you're working from an assumption that one individual shares the same fundamental rights as any other -- but we've seen a couple of rational approaches where this is not necessarily so. Concepts of rights, property, etc. could still be derived, but their properties would be different because the underlying moral landscape is different.
Those who don't recognize rights (and rights must, of necessity, apply to everyone in the same sense at the same time) are to be regarded as criminals.
First off, it's not clear that "rights must, of necessity, apply to everyone in the same sense at the same time." As noted above, observation seems to tell us that certain individuals are "more equal" than others.
We could belabor this at length, but the end result of the argument will eventually boil down to some version of "systems based on individual rights have generally better results than otherwise." Although this is probably true in a general sense, it is not necessarily true as regards any given individual. The very poor and the very rich tend to do better in systems other than free market capitalism, for example.
Aside from that, the essential standard in this argument is a utilitarian calculus that disposes of any objective concepts of right and wrong, in favor of "metrics of success," which can be defined many different ways.
Which brings us back to the Golden Rule: it may seem obvious, but it is not clear that it has any basis in objective reality, except perhaps as a utilitarian (and therefore non-objective) convenience. So you're still left with having to find an objective basis for it.
" --- Those who don't recognize rights (and rights must, of necessity, apply to everyone in the same sense at the same time) are to be regarded as criminals. "
First off, it's not clear that "rights must, of necessity, apply to everyone in the same sense at the same time." As noted above, observation seems to tell us that certain individuals are "more equal" than others.
Yep, that's the way a criminally orientated mind would argue, - in order to justify its refusal to operate under the golden rule.
We could belabor this at length, but the end result of the argument will eventually boil down to some version of "systems based on individual rights have generally better results than otherwise." Although this is probably true in a general sense,
In effect, you're claiming that our [constitutional] system based on individual rights is questionable. Very telling as to your politics.
it is not necessarily true as regards any given individual. The very poor and the very rich tend to do better in systems other than free market capitalism, for example.
Again, your own words betray your political leanings.
Aside from that, the essential standard in this argument is a utilitarian calculus that disposes of any objective concepts of right and wrong, in favor of "metrics of success," which can be defined many different ways.
Thats quite a nice string of meaningless words. Highly humorous BS. Congrats.
Which brings us back to the Golden Rule: it may seem obvious, but it is not clear that it has any basis in objective reality, except perhaps as a utilitarian (and therefore non-objective) convenience.
The golden rule works, and is real. What is not clear here is your rejection of its reality. -- Which brings us back to FreeKeys observations on the criminal mind. I think he hoisted you on your own petard.
Great Ghu, and I thought that creationists had an intellecutally vacuous cartoon picture of evolution! Compared to this, they're Darwin, Wallace, and Mendel all rolled into one.
and on that basis we can justify a claim that the use of slaves for our long-term gain is morally justified
Yep, just look at all those rich slave nations and dirtscabble non-slave nations in the world today.
Like "alone," "sex," and "is."