Comment: I think I'd fall somewhere in

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I think the utility argument (see in situ)

I think I'd fall somewhere in

I think I'd fall somewhere in between Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments and Nietzsche's The Genealogy of Morals. Not to mention all the new studies and research on evolutionary psychology and neuroscience. Who knows? All I know is rights don't exist except as subjective moral claims that bind no one else. Real rights are an outgrowth of broad common interests and social customs that form in a process of cultural selection. Even untrue beliefs can be selected for if they're advantageous to a community. There's a difference between what's strictly true logically and what fictions we can agree upon to justify what we feel is a necessary set of conditions for our own well being (the existence of rights provided by the Creator). That people have changed from the Creator to 'nature' is just a rhetorical device. The vast majority of people who still take the rights concept seriously also accept a creator. Those who have tried to separate rights from the justice of the creator have failed miserably (Rothbard, Hoppe, etc.)