On Rights

[CaptainFritz28]

The politics forum seems a bit slow, so here we go...

What is the source of our rights? Many Americans would say the Constitution, but that would imply that all non-Americans have none, which is certainly not so. Universally, not specific to any nation, what is the source of our rights? Is it just civil government in general? Is it the majority?

Furthermore, what even are rights (specifically civil rights)? It's probably better to start with that question.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The Constitution certainly is not a *source* of rights. It's a piece of paper that enunciates rights that have some deeper cause.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

There might be all sorts of arguments for why we *ought* to have certain rights, based on religious arguments, appeals to universalism, etc. But ultimately we only get the rights that can be bargained for politically — who gets what rights is a matter of realpolitik, they can and do change often based on who wins elections, who has economic power, who's willing to fight and die, etc.

[CaptainFritz28]

The Constitution certainly is not a *source* of rights. It's a piece of paper that enunciates rights that have some deeper cause.

Agreed.

[CaptainFritz28]

There might be all sorts of arguments for why we *ought* to have certain rights, based on religious arguments, appeals to universalism, etc. But ultimately we only get the rights that can be bargained for politically — who gets what rights is a matter of realpolitik, they can and do change often based on who wins elections, who has economic power, who's willing to fight and die, etc.

My question is the one of what rights we ought to have, specifically where the rights that we ought to have find their source and why.

Practically, as you said, it's a matter of what one can get, but that isn't quite as interesting of a topic.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I feel the conversation about "where do rights come from" will rhyme with the old thread on morality.

I hold a deep view that I am personally entitled to certain rights, even if I can't necessarily find an *objective* reason to say I'm entitled to things like life, liberty, etc. I suspect they flow naturally from my biology and the inherent wrongness of suffering. One could instead ground that in a value imparted by a creator.

Regardless of its source, if I want others to respect my deeply felt conviction that I deserve certain rights, I need to reciprocate unless I can come up with a compelling reason for why I'm special. Empathic reasoning, biological evidence, etc., make it hard to sustain a position that I'm special. Religious people can get to the same universalist conclusion if they believe we're all made in God's image.

[CaptainFritz28]

I am curious - if our rights are grounded in our biology or natural intuition...

a) Why do so many people have so many different ideas of what rights people should have, as biological/evolutionary functions are usually considered common to all humanity? How does empathy come into the picture as naturally flowing from biology, if empathy hasn't been the conclusion of billions of humans for thousands of years before us, and still isn't the conclusion of many?
b) If it's purely natural, wouldn't that end in a survival of the fittest sort of conclusion that the thing that determines our rights is how much power we can exert to get what we want? That seems to be how the rest of nature works.

I don't ask this as a sort of attempt at a "gotcha" or something like that, I'm legitimately curious because it doesn't make sense to me, and since you're generally rather rational in your thought process I figured you could explain it to me as someone who holds such a position themselves. Otherwise I figure I'd end up inadvertently straw-manning the whole thing if I tried to come up with a conclusion on my own.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Your questions are totally fair. What I presented as a potential source of rights earlier leaves open an uncomfortable amount of room for earnest debate.

The point re: empathy seems a bit confused. My earlier point was just that one source of evidence that others share my desire for certain rights comes from my ability to empathize with their situation. Rights don't require empathy, but they are revealed by it. If there were some island only occupied by psychopaths with no empathy, the residents of the island would still have rights, but they might not be as easily recognized by the inhabitants.

My framing of rights above is predicated on our evolved nature. My desire to continue living and to exercise autonomy seem pretty fundamentally connected to my base darwinian purpose (living long enough to reproduce and choosing my reproductive partner(s)). I expect those two rights in particular (i.e., to life and freedom) are basically universal to all living things. If I instead had the nature of, say, a rock, I don't think a rights framework would apply to me.

Even though the source of rights is biological/Darwinian, and Darwinianism optimizes for something other than rights (gene propogation), that doesn't obviate the existence of rights. I could certainly get ahead in a Darwinian sense by ignoring rights—killing people to take their resources, forcing my genes into the next generation, etc. But I would still be violating the rights of others by doing so. An uncomfortable reality of being biological is that we're probably hardwired to abuse rights in many circumstances (a lion needs to ignore the right of a gazelle for life due to its dietary needs, for example). There are, however, countervailing forces—in humans at least, some level of altruism has obvious Darwinian advantages.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

^ To me, this all explains the nature of rights, but ultimately doesn't do much to really enumerate our rights nor adjudicate areas where rights conflict.

My right to life seems pretty foundational. And it follows somewhat easily that anyone who would murder me without cause is trampling my rights. But this gets fuzzy quickly:

Maybe I pose a threat to their right to life by threatening them or consuming resources they need - how bad does it have to get before their right to life trumps mine?

Maybe someone could save my life with *their* food and medicine - does my right to life generate an obligation for them to positively intervene to save me? If so, at what cost (e.g., what risk should they take that they might starve or lack medicine in the future)?

I'd purport there is indeed a real, biologically-based right to life. But even this most basic right leaves us with all sorts of practical questions that are very hard to answer—hence the observed diversity in how human societies approach rights/obligations.

[CaptainFritz28]

So if I understand correctly, your rights will equal your Darwinian purpose, and extend as far as they don't conflict with others' carrying out their Darwinian purpose? And an individual can better understand the latter part of this with empathy?

That makes sense as a basis for a right to life... (and begins to invite moral questions about what taking a life means [e.g. in the womb?] and when it is justified [e.g. euthanasia? war over vital resources?], but that's beyond the scope of what I went to talk about here) but the one thing I'm confused about is how that implies a right to certain freedoms and what those freedoms are from a Darwinian standpoint. You mentioned choosing one's reproductive partner as a Darwinian freedom... I'm curious, where do you get that from? I've not encountered it before in Darwin's theory or others' expounding upon it, and you've really piqued my curiosity because I rather enjoy encountering and testing parts of philosophies that I haven't heard about before.

I also should note that it the whole philosophy that you present very much seems to me to leads an individual away from self-sacrifice for the sake of others, which seems to me quite a noble virtue. Since I don't think you're advocating for us all to live as selfishly as possible, what am I missing?

[yavuzovic]

I think rights are simply agreed upon principles that don't fundamentally exist, and are subject to change. The reason they exist is because we realized that order allows societies, which compete better against individuals. And because this realization is now embedded in our evolution, it is clear that we feel a sense of justice. This justice doesn't exist outside the society, when the gazelle is killed by the lion, this isn't because it deserved it, because there is no such thing as deserving it in the first place, there are only the things you can do, and the things you can enforce others to do. When we are a society, we have a higher power to enforce certain rules over everyone in that society.
The reason we prefer it, or evolution favored this is because "rights" allow societies to form. Sure I like the neighbors' building but if I kill him and take it, someone else will kill me and take it from me, and then people will stop paying for houses, then people will stop building houses. I also think that rights, and the rules that define them should follow this principle of pragmatism.
Also altruism is part of Darwinism, so I don't think contributing to society is against pragmatism. This comes down to what our purpose is and is out of scope for this thread but if we like doing something that isn't logical, that... is the logical thing to do.
For example pro-choice vs pro-life issue can also be considered this way, though no answer can be given. Abortion isn't the same as murder, as there is no threat to the order of society. If it has health hazards, well that's the problem of the person who does it. In that situation, people have the right to practice it, and they can enforce this right if they are the majority of power. But also, if those holding the majority of power, this being majority of voters in a democratic society, doesn't feel okay with this, then they can enforce the opposite on the others. Even though illogical, if people collectively want something, then that is pragmatic because this pleases the most. Nothing is fundamental, and it all comes down to who can enforce what, and it becomes a right.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

So if I understand correctly, your rights will equal your Darwinian purpose, and extend as far as they don't conflict with others' carrying out their Darwinian purpose? And an individual can better understand the latter part of this with empathy?

In my mind your rights stem from your biological reality. My biology dictates that I will suffer under certain circumstances (e.g., confinement, torture) and it gives me a strong intrinsic reason to want to continue living. Empathy lets me recognize that these facts are not unique to me, but extend to basically all humans and probably many animals.

You mentioned choosing one's reproductive partner as a Darwinian freedom... I'm curious, where do you get that from? I've not encountered it before in Darwin's theory or others' expounding upon it, and you've really piqued my curiosity because I rather enjoy encountering and testing parts of philosophies that I haven't heard about before.

Choosing reproductive partners is the most important decision any living being makes. For humans, that choice is extraordinarily consequential for women in particular. The singular importance of this choice means that, over generations, living beings have selected to make individuals that are extraordinarily concerned with exercising agency in this area, and who suffer greatly when they are subjected to coerced reproduction. I would put "right to choose ones reproductive partner" as the most important and fundamental right after "right to life".

I also should note that it the whole philosophy that you present very much seems to me to leads an individual away from self-sacrifice for the sake of others, which seems to me quite a noble virtue. Since I don't think you're advocating for us all to live as selfishly as possible, what am I missing?

This seems to toggle between "rights" and general morality. I'm honestly not sure whether my neighbour's right to life and liberty creates a positive obligation for me to sacrifice in order to advance their flourishing. Doing so might make me a good person, but I don't know that my neighbour is necessarily entitled to my self-sacrificial charity.

That said, the rights of children, the elderly, etc., probably do impose an obligation for self-sacrifice onto someone. We're lucky, in a sense, that the Darwinian rationale of taking care of one's own offspring and genetic relatives is fairly universal—and that our elderly typically only live as long (in nature, at least) as they continue to make net contributions to their children and grandchildren. In that way, the burden of care tends to align with evolved interests: parents sacrifice for children because doing so promotes their own genetic success; children eventually care for aging parents because those parents often still offer resources, wisdom, or childcare. The system mostly holds together without requiring much moral heroism—although we no doubt agree that we should strive for a society that exceeds this minimum standard and encourages non-related folks to care for one another.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I think rights are simply agreed upon principles that don't fundamentally exist, and are subject to change. The reason they exist is because we realized that order allows societies, which compete better against individuals. And because this realization is now embedded in our evolution, it is clear that we feel a sense of justice. This justice doesn't exist outside the society, when the gazelle is killed by the lion, this isn't because it deserved it, because there is no such thing as deserving it in the first place, there are only the things you can do, and the things you can enforce others to do. When we are a society, we have a higher power to enforce certain rules over everyone in that society.
The reason we prefer it, or evolution favored this is because "rights" allow societies to form. Sure I like the neighbors' building but if I kill him and take it, someone else will kill me and take it from me, and then people will stop paying for houses, then people will stop building houses. I also think that rights, and the rules that define them should follow this principle of pragmatism.
Also altruism is part of Darwinism, so I don't think contributing to society is against pragmatism. This comes down to what our purpose is and is out of scope for this thread but if we like doing something that isn't logical, that... is the logical thing to do.
For example pro-choice vs pro-life issue can also be considered this way, though no answer can be given. Abortion isn't the same as murder, as there is no threat to the order of society. If it has health hazards, well that's the problem of the person who does it. In that situation, people have the right to practice it, and they can enforce this right if they are the majority of power. But also, if those holding the majority of power, this being majority of voters in a democratic society, doesn't feel okay with this, then they can enforce the opposite on the others. Even though illogical, if people collectively want something, then that is pragmatic because this pleases the most. Nothing is fundamental, and it all comes down to who can enforce what, and it becomes a right.

This is a very good presentation of constructivism/relativism. But I wonder if you take it all the way?

If rights are determined by what the majority can enforce, is there any principled basis—within your framework—for protecting minority groups against majoritarian abuses? Or are such protections only sustainable if the majority finds them convenient? I would argue that persecuted minorities really do have rights that stem from their biology, which cannot be negated by social expediency (even though they can, as a matter of fact, be ignored and trampled upon by the more powerful group). To put a finer point on it, slavery is a rights-abusing social institution, even though it was consistent with several durable societies throughout history.

It seems to me there really are rights to discover and its possible for individuals and societies to be mistaken about them, ignore them, trample them for expediency, etc.

[yavuzovic]

I think rights are simply agreed upon principles that don't fundamentally exist, and are subject to change. The reason they exist is because we realized that order allows societies, which compete better against individuals. And because this realization is now embedded in our evolution, it is clear that we feel a sense of justice. This justice doesn't exist outside the society, when the gazelle is killed by the lion, this isn't because it deserved it, because there is no such thing as deserving it in the first place, there are only the things you can do, and the things you can enforce others to do. When we are a society, we have a higher power to enforce certain rules over everyone in that society.
The reason we prefer it, or evolution favored this is because "rights" allow societies to form. Sure I like the neighbors' building but if I kill him and take it, someone else will kill me and take it from me, and then people will stop paying for houses, then people will stop building houses. I also think that rights, and the rules that define them should follow this principle of pragmatism.
Also altruism is part of Darwinism, so I don't think contributing to society is against pragmatism. This comes down to what our purpose is and is out of scope for this thread but if we like doing something that isn't logical, that... is the logical thing to do.
For example pro-choice vs pro-life issue can also be considered this way, though no answer can be given. Abortion isn't the same as murder, as there is no threat to the order of society. If it has health hazards, well that's the problem of the person who does it. In that situation, people have the right to practice it, and they can enforce this right if they are the majority of power. But also, if those holding the majority of power, this being majority of voters in a democratic society, doesn't feel okay with this, then they can enforce the opposite on the others. Even though illogical, if people collectively want something, then that is pragmatic because this pleases the most. Nothing is fundamental, and it all comes down to who can enforce what, and it becomes a right.

This is a very good presentation of constructivism/relativism. But I wonder if you take it all the way?

If rights are determined by what the majority can enforce, is there any principled basis—within your framework—for protecting minority groups against majoritarian abuses? Or are such protections only sustainable if the majority finds them convenient? I would argue that persecuted minorities really do have rights that stem from their biology, which cannot be negated by social expediency (even though they can, as a matter of fact, be ignored and trampled upon by the more powerful group). To put a finer point on it, slavery is a rights-abusing social institution, even though it was consistent with several durable societies throughout history.

It seems to me there really are rights to discover and its possible for individuals and societies to be mistaken about them, ignore them, trample them for expediency, etc.

Slavery can be abolished in only 3 ways, by a rebellion, by consensus, or by foreign intervention. In all cases it is a power imbalance that favors the abolishment. If none is present, then people will just keep practicing it, and the most you can do will be disliking it. Take this example, and it also applies to all majoritarian abuses. Similarly, when you said people have rights that stem from their biology, that's because you want to believe it, not because it is a tangible thing. From your expression, I assume that you refer to the "sense of justice" when you mean innate rights. Even then, isn't this a subjective thing? If people were to evolve in a different way in an alternate reality where they did only what was convenient for them, and so did the majority; would you still accuse them for not respecting rights, even though they have no sense of it? If your understanding of rights is only rooted in how you feel, then a sociopath might say "Well, that's how I feel and how I define rights, and act accordingly?"

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Slavery can be abolished in only 3 ways, by a rebellion, by consensus, or by foreign intervention. In all cases it is a power imbalance that favors the abolishment. If none is present, then people will just keep practicing it, and the most you can do will be disliking it.

We agree that the reality of who gets what rights, in practice, is a matter of power.

But I don't think that power creates rights. If rights flow from something more fundamental (e.g., the wrongness of suffering, and our evolved capacity to suffer) then societies cannot redefine rights willy-nilly and will often be rights-abusing.

Similarly, when you said people have rights that stem from their biology, that's because you want to believe it, not because it is a tangible thing.

There are many times where I might not prefer to believe it. Being able to ignore the rights of others is often convenient.

And I would argue it is tangible. Human bodies (and maybe some other biology) insatiate suffering. An enslaved person's yearning to be free is a fact about the universe. It's not a *necessary* fact about the universe—a clever eugenicist in the year 2200 might be able to gene edit a non-suffering slave human. But it's true today.

From your expression, I assume that you refer to the "sense of justice" when you mean innate rights. Even then, isn't this a subjective thing? If people were to evolve in a different way in an alternate reality where they did only what was convenient for them, and so did the majority; would you still accuse them for not respecting rights, even though they have no sense of it? If your understanding of rights is only rooted in how you feel, then a sociopath might say "Well, that's how I feel and how I define rights, and act accordingly?"

It's "subjective" in the sense that it's reliant upon our biology. The rights that flow from what we are as creatures probably largely don't apply to amoeba and trees, but might apply in many relevant cases to, say, chimpanzees.

If there were some very alien biology on another planet that made creatures like us, but that were incapable of suffering and reproduced aesexually, then the rights I have in mind for humans would largely not apply.

A sociopath in a human society is wrong if they abuse others rights on the basis of "it fits how I feel". They could, if they studied it, discover that other humans have many of the same core needs/desires as they do, and in doing so they would not be able to justify a wanton murder or rape they might like to commit.

[CaptainFritz28]

I think rights are simply agreed upon principles that don't fundamentally exist, and are subject to change. The reason they exist is because we realized that order allows societies, which compete better against individuals. And because this realization is now embedded in our evolution, it is clear that we feel a sense of justice. This justice doesn't exist outside the society, when the gazelle is killed by the lion, this isn't because it deserved it, because there is no such thing as deserving it in the first place, there are only the things you can do, and the things you can enforce others to do. When we are a society, we have a higher power to enforce certain rules over everyone in that society.
The reason we prefer it, or evolution favored this is because "rights" allow societies to form. Sure I like the neighbors' building but if I kill him and take it, someone else will kill me and take it from me, and then people will stop paying for houses, then people will stop building houses. I also think that rights, and the rules that define them should follow this principle of pragmatism.
Also altruism is part of Darwinism, so I don't think contributing to society is against pragmatism. This comes down to what our purpose is and is out of scope for this thread but if we like doing something that isn't logical, that... is the logical thing to do.
For example pro-choice vs pro-life issue can also be considered this way, though no answer can be given. Abortion isn't the same as murder, as there is no threat to the order of society. If it has health hazards, well that's the problem of the person who does it. In that situation, people have the right to practice it, and they can enforce this right if they are the majority of power. But also, if those holding the majority of power, this being majority of voters in a democratic society, doesn't feel okay with this, then they can enforce the opposite on the others. Even though illogical, if people collectively want something, then that is pragmatic because this pleases the most. Nothing is fundamental, and it all comes down to who can enforce what, and it becomes a right.

This is a very good presentation of constructivism/relativism. But I wonder if you take it all the way?

If rights are determined by what the majority can enforce, is there any principled basis—within your framework—for protecting minority groups against majoritarian abuses? Or are such protections only sustainable if the majority finds them convenient? I would argue that persecuted minorities really do have rights that stem from their biology, which cannot be negated by social expediency (even though they can, as a matter of fact, be ignored and trampled upon by the more powerful group). To put a finer point on it, slavery is a rights-abusing social institution, even though it was consistent with several durable societies throughout history.

It seems to me there really are rights to discover and its possible for individuals and societies to be mistaken about them, ignore them, trample them for expediency, etc.

Slavery can be abolished in only 3 ways, by a rebellion, by consensus, or by foreign intervention. In all cases it is a power imbalance that favors the abolishment. If none is present, then people will just keep practicing it, and the most you can do will be disliking it. Take this example, and it also applies to all majoritarian abuses. Similarly, when you said people have rights that stem from their biology, that's because you want to believe it, not because it is a tangible thing. From your expression, I assume that you refer to the "sense of justice" when you mean innate rights. Even then, isn't this a subjective thing? If people were to evolve in a different way in an alternate reality where they did only what was convenient for them, and so did the majority; would you still accuse them for not respecting rights, even though they have no sense of it? If your understanding of rights is only rooted in how you feel, then a sociopath might say "Well, that's how I feel and how I define rights, and act accordingly?"

Would you say, then, that the Confederates fighting to continue the practice of slavery in the United States was, in fact, them protecting their own rights? (As they were those with the majority of power in the South, and thus had a right to enslave others?)

[CaptainFritz28]

And I would argue it is tangible. Human bodies (and maybe some other biology) insatiate suffering. An enslaved person's yearning to be free is a fact about the universe. It's not a *necessary* fact about the universe—a clever eugenicist in the year 2200 might be able to gene edit a non-suffering slave human. But it's true today.
[...]
It's "subjective" in the sense that it's reliant upon our biology. The rights that flow from what we are as creatures probably largely don't apply to amoeba and trees, but might apply in many relevant cases to, say, chimpanzees.

What I find interesting about your stance is that, if taken with consideration of your belief in biological evolution (presumably from non-life to where we are now), this implies that 200 years ago, you would've argued that abortion is not a right, as it had a high risk of incurring suffering upon the mother (I could mention the suffering that it causes the child, but I'll leave that out because I only mean to use abortion as an example), whereas now you argue that it is because it doesn't cause such suffering. What I wonder is how this is so much a product of biology as it is of technology (we are, even per Darwinian evolution, basically no different than we were 200 years ago, and we're no smarter, we just have more tech, which has its origins on what we had).

Your position, then, appears to be that rights change as we do, not biologically but technologically, in that biologically, the goal is the same, and technologically, we may be able to do certain things without hindering that goal that we couldn't do before.

[CaptainFritz28]

I think rights are simply agreed upon principles that don't fundamentally exist, and are subject to change. The reason they exist is because we realized that order allows societies, which compete better against individuals. And because this realization is now embedded in our evolution, it is clear that we feel a sense of justice. This justice doesn't exist outside the society, when the gazelle is killed by the lion, this isn't because it deserved it, because there is no such thing as deserving it in the first place, there are only the things you can do, and the things you can enforce others to do. When we are a society, we have a higher power to enforce certain rules over everyone in that society.
The reason we prefer it, or evolution favored this is because "rights" allow societies to form. Sure I like the neighbors' building but if I kill him and take it, someone else will kill me and take it from me, and then people will stop paying for houses, then people will stop building houses. I also think that rights, and the rules that define them should follow this principle of pragmatism.
Also altruism is part of Darwinism, so I don't think contributing to society is against pragmatism. This comes down to what our purpose is and is out of scope for this thread but if we like doing something that isn't logical, that... is the logical thing to do.
For example pro-choice vs pro-life issue can also be considered this way, though no answer can be given. Abortion isn't the same as murder, as there is no threat to the order of society. If it has health hazards, well that's the problem of the person who does it. In that situation, people have the right to practice it, and they can enforce this right if they are the majority of power. But also, if those holding the majority of power, this being majority of voters in a democratic society, doesn't feel okay with this, then they can enforce the opposite on the others. Even though illogical, if people collectively want something, then that is pragmatic because this pleases the most. Nothing is fundamental, and it all comes down to who can enforce what, and it becomes a right.

If this is the presumptions made by and conclusion arrived to by the majority of people nowadays (and I think it is), then I suddenly understand why depression and suicide are so prevalent. It's so... hopeless... everyone is capable of having any or all of their rights removed at any point, not just practically but fundamentally, if that's what those in power decide. Causing political change cannot be about doing what's right, but garnering enough support that you become the major force. Justice cannot be about what people deserve, but what those with power say they deserve.

I pity you... you can say what you like about my worldview being fantastical or ridiculous (should anyone say such a thing, their opinion is their opinion), but at least it offers some meaning besides the tyranny of the majority, something to fight for that is not merely based in the ever-changing, never satisfying and never satisfied, collection of my wants.

[yavuzovic]

I will not quote it all, but consider this a response to all three of the posts that quoted my last post.

Firstly, I didn't present what I argued as moral truths, but as observations or logical implications. Again, humans are both altruistic and empathetic creatures. If something is bothering you with no clear pragmatic benefit, you're still expected to be against it, and so would I in most cases. I'm not arguing against the morality people innately have. I'm just saying that rights are baseless (at least without divine intervention to define what they are).

Our morals and perception of justice come from our evolution as a group animal. Humans then use these moral codes to define rights, for themselves, for other people and even for animals. But this definition is no more than moral comfort. So is the "wrongness of suffering". Suffering is the nature's signal for harm. It is wrong for the sufferer themselves, but the universe doesn't care about it. Only humans do (and maybe some animals as well to some extent). Then how can it be universal and fundamental? I'm not supporting being indifferent to others' suffering, or abuse of rights. I'm just saying that if we're against others' suffering, that's because we also feel their pain as if it is ours - maybe lighter, but it is there. Therefore our craving for rights is again, a product of our own feelings. If all humans agree on a certain action being wrong, then at most we would say "This is part of being human", but not a fundamental law.

And I would say that, yes, Confederates were fighting for their right to practice slavery. I believe that this is immoral and unjust, but if they don't perceive it as such, then how can we say that freedom is a fundamental and universal right? If the majority of people carried a Confederate mindset, then today slavery would be a right as well. Since more people, or more power, considered freedom as a right, it became a right. But once again, even if every single person agreed to it, that would merely reflect our biology, unlike the law of power, which is so fundamental that even supposed gods operate under it.

And I disagree with CaptainFritz's point here, that's what drives people to question authority. I don't feel nihilistic or depressed at all. I see this the way I see a law of physics, it exists and that's it. It would be nice to be able to fly, but the gravity is real, there is nothing to be depressed about, we can try to build a machine to fly even though the gravity still exists. Rights being only dependent on the morals of ruling doesn't make my rights revokable in all cases, it instead acts as an incentive to protect my rights.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

And I would say that, yes, Confederates were fighting for their right to practice slavery. I believe that this is immoral and unjust, but if they don't perceive it as such, then how can we say that freedom is a fundamental and universal right? If the majority of people carried a Confederate mindset, then today slavery would be a right as well.

I don’t mean to endlessly quibble—we clearly have a fundamental disagreement.

Put simply, I think your view conflates the existence of rights with their recognition or enforcement.

“Universal” doesn’t mean universally agreed upon—it means something applies to all humans in virtue of what they are, not because everyone signed a contract.

I believe our evolved nature—and the reality of human suffering and flourishing—provides at least one grounding for rights, independent of whatever social norms happen to persist.