What Human Rights?

[Mudhammam]

In the most basic sense we do not have inherent rights. A 'right' is a concept that had its provenience as our ability to think and form ideas evolved. Because of this, rights are fluid and changing, just like morality. However when taken into consideration under a snap-shot in time, these rights may be defined as universal but a look at how humanity has developed can easily pinpoint how the idea of rights being somewhat of a shape shifter. We have rights only to the point that they can be thought of and granted by a community. 

I'm open to other forms of logic in the discussion though. 

Sure, a "right" is a concept but that doesn't negate the possibility that it IS a valid description of something in nature, related to sentient, AND/OR rational beings ("mankind" seems somehow too anthropocentric, or limited), that confers duties upon said beings to act, or to strive towards an ideal, in a given manner.

After all, one could also say the following, and I think it would be entirely true, yet not an argument against the concept: 
"A 'truth' is a concept that had its provenience as our ability to think and form ideas evolved. Because of this, truths are fluid and changing, just like morality. However when taken into consideration under a snap-shot in time, these truths may be defined as universal but a look at how humanity has developed can easily pinpoint how the idea of truth being somewhat of a shape shifter. We have truth only to the point that they can be thought of and granted by a community (such as a consensus amongst scientists or philosophers)."

I'm not saying I think there is a justification for human rights that demonstrates their objectivity and universality in such a way that leaves the argument closed to a refutation or dismissal. I tend to agree with Chad that only via something like deity (though perhaps we need not stoop that low) does the idea of universal human rights, relegated to us as a sort of fundamental law of nature, begin to seem defensible. Then again, if, like Chuck says, "beneficial fantasies" are sometimes necessary for maximizing welfare, Pandora's box --- as far as rationalism is concerned --- may already be open.