Yet here you are making broad claims you expect everyone to follow.
First is the common confusion about what rights are. Rights are not a claim upon objects. Rights are the moral authority to act which cannot be alienated. EG your right to self defense is the moral right to act in self defense. You were born with it, and will die with it. The Constitution doesn't create it. (and very poorly protects it these days)
Second, in this sense morality is not subjective. You can say a person, or animal doesn't have the right to self defense but that doesn't change reality. In reality if you try to hurt someone they retain the right to fight you.
That is not a sufficient definition of rights. We can narrow it down further by recognizing that what we call rights can be defined as the set of actions the exercise of which do not create a conflict with someone else performing the same action. We can all have the right to self defense but we cannot all have the right to murder.
We can use this definition to describe rights based morality in a strict way, and this describes a morality. A 'thin' morality but it can be defined, so it is not subjective, any more than describing the rules for prime numbers is subjective. Intangible is not the same thing as subjective.
These rights further map all over the animal world. The right to life, liberty and property are seen in most animals. They don't need to be taught. It seems far fetched that this is an accident.
Rights based cases for liberty aren't as flawed as you think. Even so, you should understand that different people are convinced by different types of arguments. Just because you aren't moved by rights arguments you are foolish to disdain a tool others are using, and using with efficacy.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: