This is a great illustration of the kind of nonsense garble “ethics” people come up with when they have no first principles.
First I assume that individuals must be able to put their goals into a total ordering (such that every goal is more or less important than every other goal). After observing the behavior/credentials/ect of another person an individual may decide that that person is worth obeying in order to achieve one or more of their goals. Hereafter I will refer to this process as swearing loyalty to someone. The individual should then obey the person they are loyal to absolutely, as long as their commands do not interfere with the commands of someone else they are loyal to. In the case of a conflict the command to obey should be determined by the individual’s total ordering of goals. The individual is expected to only be loyal to a single individual for the purpose of accomplishing a goal (for example the individual shouldn’t swear loyalty to both A and B for the purpose of world peace). Finally, the individual should only break their bond of loyalty after being presented with evidence that the person they are loyal to is motivated to act against the goal that was the purpose of the bond…
What kind of society would emerge from following such a code? Well for the most part it would be hierarchal, where person A would be loyal to B, who is loyal to C, ect, so that one person may end up indirectly having authority over a large number of people. It is not true that all relations must be strictly hierarchal though. For example A may be loyal to B for world peace, but B may be loyal to A when it comes to interior design.
Gabble garble watermelon.