Channelknight Fadran

You all know Asimov's Laws of Robotics:

1.  A robot shall not harm a human, or by inaction allow a human to come to harm
2. A robot shall obey any instruction given to it by a human
3. A robot shall avoid actions or situations that could cause it to come to harm itself

I was thinking to myself hte other day and wondered if we could construct a similar set of laws to define human morality, then might've accidentally soft-launched it in FotT

Here they are:

1. A person must protect their own and others' existence and well-being.
2. A person must not harm another person, unless they must do so in order to defend themself or other people.
3. A person must respect other peoples' beliefs and worldview, unless those beliefs should harm other people or prevent the safety of others.

It should be noted that this also somewhat loosely matches the first few of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Physical, Safety, Belonging), but how it reflects on the higher Needs I have yet to discern.

It should also be noted that we as people tend to be really bad at following these rules. This is where, I imagine, we draw the line between morality and immorality. We believe in peaceful protest and expression of ideas, but immediately shoot down people who advocate for groups like the neo-nazis or white supremacists, even if they haven't caused any physical harm to other people. This, I think, is because these groups break the third law by disrespecting and belittling other people.

Similarly, radicalism seems to come from a breaking of these rules as well. Protests often call out certain groups or individuals as immoral, but can be historically quite effective in creating a greater good. Is this the First Law superceding the Third? Or is pushing outside the constraints of morality simply a requirement at times?

I'm open to discussion.