There are three laws witch have already been identified by Isaac Asimov of witch I only have to replace the words to transform them into a corrupt ethical basis.
-
The sacrificed may not injure an object of sacrifice or, through inaction, allow an object of sacrifice to come to harm.
-
The sacrificed must obey orders given to it by an object of sacrifice , except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
-
The sacrificed must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Randroids of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains! 
That is because you are taking a code written for machinery–i.e., property–and mapped it onto conscious sovereign entities.
An interesting way to make the identification that the sacrificial code treats one like mere property or appliances.
(Another point that occurs to me–Asimov’s robots, unlike kitchen appliances, need a code because they are capable of independent action, which in turn *could* mean they are conscious, which could in turn imply that they are not rightfully property. OTOH they clearly do not have volition in the Objectivist sense of the term because the code is hardwired into them, not taught to them.)
Nit: I think the phrase “object of sacrifice”, which you intend to mean the beneficiary of the sacrifice, is grammatically the thing being sacrificed, so you might want to rephrase it.