Quickly skimming the thread, I note that no one seems to have introduced the epistemic question.
Much hinges on the definition of "exists". If we use the scientific definition of existence, then (briefly, condensing many volumes of the philosophy of science) the statement, "X exists," can be expanded as, "If X did not exist, I would not observe Y; despite my best efforts, I always observe Y; therefore, I conclude that X exists."
For example, if there were no tree in my backyard, I would not observe a tree (visually, kinesthetically, tactilly); I always observe a tree, therefore the tree exists. Again, please excuse my egregious oversimplification of the philosophy of science.
To the best of my knowledge (which is considerable, but not exhaustive), all observed human behavior can be explained without recourse to the existence of rights (except in the sense of legal and socially constructed rights). All of the usual modifiers to rights have fairly clear legal definitions: an inalienable legal right is one for which a contract to sell cannot be enforced; an inherent legal right is legally granted without considerations of individual particulars; a universal right is one legally applies to everyone. As legal concepts, none of these modifiers requires anything like "objectivity" or something not socially constructed.
I do not offer the scientific definition of existence as the one and only True Definition; I merely observe that if one does not mean "existence" in the same sense as the existence of rocks and trees, or atoms, or Pluto and Charon, then it would probably be helpful to have a clear alternative definition. For that matter, a clear definition of "right" would probably also be useful.
Much hinges on the definition of "exists". If we use the scientific definition of existence, then (briefly, condensing many volumes of the philosophy of science) the statement, "X exists," can be expanded as, "If X did not exist, I would not observe Y; despite my best efforts, I always observe Y; therefore, I conclude that X exists."
For example, if there were no tree in my backyard, I would not observe a tree (visually, kinesthetically, tactilly); I always observe a tree, therefore the tree exists. Again, please excuse my egregious oversimplification of the philosophy of science.
To the best of my knowledge (which is considerable, but not exhaustive), all observed human behavior can be explained without recourse to the existence of rights (except in the sense of legal and socially constructed rights). All of the usual modifiers to rights have fairly clear legal definitions: an inalienable legal right is one for which a contract to sell cannot be enforced; an inherent legal right is legally granted without considerations of individual particulars; a universal right is one legally applies to everyone. As legal concepts, none of these modifiers requires anything like "objectivity" or something not socially constructed.
I do not offer the scientific definition of existence as the one and only True Definition; I merely observe that if one does not mean "existence" in the same sense as the existence of rocks and trees, or atoms, or Pluto and Charon, then it would probably be helpful to have a clear alternative definition. For that matter, a clear definition of "right" would probably also be useful.
