Showing respect for the person gives content to moral law.
Yes, it does. The fundamental truth of a free society is that the exercise of freedom is always burdened with responsibility in the exercise thereof - the responsibility to respect the rights and freedoms of others - otherwise society is not free. When the exercise of a person's right impinges on the rights of others, that right terminates. Real freedom requires respect for the rights of others in society.
Dan Cooper's rights, in my opinion, were subordinated to his company's right to make a dollar.
Other way around, King. In my country, everyone has rights. Stockholders are people too, people with the same rights as everyone else. The stockholders of Cooper, through the Board of Directors they selected, hired Dan Cooper in good faith to be president of Cooper. At the top of the job description for the president of any corp is the responsibility to protect the investment of the stockholders. Dan Cooper recklessly subordinated the rights of those people to his own, resulting in extreme hazard to their investments, which he had accepted personal responsibility to protect in exchange for their money. Dan Cooper failed utterly to respect the rights of others that he was specifically responsible for.
If, as you say, only certain classes of people have rights in Canada, which I strongly doubt, well, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. "Worker's Paradise", eh? I've never been under the illusion that freedom is as well protected elsewhere as it is here. I'm sure glad I'm an American.
