In any case, you wish to determine human rights by observing that human beings have values that others will alter their behavior to avoid conflicting. That is not workable in every circumstance in my opinion, if you want rights to be the same for everyone. Here are my reasons:
1. Sometimes violent or tyrannical people do not alter their behavior with others. Therefore by your construct the right to live is not universal. I will not assert that human beings have a right to life in America but not in Sudan, where I observe the government acting in violation of the values of the populace.
2. In some circumstances people do not exhibit values because they are unable to - an infant cannot stop someone from taking his or her life. In fact they wouldn't even try. Therefore you could not observe an infant valuing his or her life.
A comatose human, or a vegetable, cannot attempt to stop you from stealing his possessions or taking his life. He would make no sign that he values anything at all.
3. Just because I observe a value in someone else and try to avoid it does not make it a "right."
Which brings me to my opinion on what rights are - gifts from God that, if human beings attempt to take without due process, result in temporal or eternal sanctions.
If something does not meet this criteria it is not a right but a preference.
For the above reasons, we need an eternal standard that does not change. People are made in the image of God, and have rights whether they are comatose, infants, subject to those who do not recognize their right to live, or whatever.
I have given this matter true thought. And, as I said in my last message, I do wish you well. God bless.
I take you at your word.
I have said that your fact #3, that human beings can be peacefully persuaded, is true. ...I cannot say that it is true in every circumstance. I am sorry if that offends you.
Not offends but stupifies. I admit my frustration shows. You and I clearly speak a different language. How someone can think that a fact is both true and not true is beyond me. I did give these points some consideration, and have not, depite our discussions on it, felt the need to amend them, though I would do so if necessary. Furthermore, it wasn't by accident that I labelled them as "facts". If it isn't true in all circumstances, then simply say that IT ISN'T TRUE. Tell me that it cannot be a fact, and then kindly tell me why. If on the otherhand, you merely want to point out the fact that humans (not to mention trees, frogs, tornados, sand, etc.) are also observed to NOT respond to peaceful persuasion, then just say so. I would have thought that it was obvious, but point out the obvious if you wish. I couldn't possibly disagree. It does not however, as I have tried at length to explain, contradict FACT#3. I think on such obvious points of contention as FACT#3, we can expect some precision in our language.
In any case, you wish to determine human rights by observing that human beings have values that others will alter their behavior to avoid conflicting. That is not workable in every circumstance
It is not my wish, but my, and I'm quite sure your, observation that this does occur. I have no emotional attachment other than to say if it isn't true, there is some grand illusionist at work trying to fool me. You say it doesn't occur in EVERY human interaction? You say human conflict does actually happen? Well, you could knock me over with a feather.
My point again is that rights are relevant to WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN, NOT WHEN IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I further say, that if it NEVER happened, then there would be no concept of rights at all. The fact that humans, or rams, or boulders can knock each other around is only relevant in that, against a sea of examples of Newton's second law (yes including humans as well), there is a glimmer of light, in the form of FACT#3, that shows a different mechanism. From that glimmer, we develop the notion of rights.
if you want rights to be the same for everyone
The laws of nature are utterly indifferent.
...human beings have a right to...
Maybe I've been too impatient. I admit that you do use the term "rights" in a common way. I also use it that way in casual conversation. But behind such usage I try to understand the mechanisms. You might say that houses came from god as well, but will god look askance at you for investigating the more mundane details of house construction? You might say that god gives you life, but should we burn surgeons for trying to understand the mundane mechanisms of circulation, tissue repair, and infection? If not, then why would you think that you oppose god by trying to gain an understanding of the facts underlying the real world manifestation of rights? Trust me, god will not strike you down for using the intellect that he gave you.
I recognize that you gave several more examples of humans not responding to persuasion, and humans not holding values, or even holding a thought. I will say that, again, rights are relevant only from FACTS 1-3. One cannot ever choose to respond to another's values if one is never conscious. These are, again, cold hard facts. It is not a matter of liking them, only recognizing and understanding them.
Now if you have a vision of how people OUGHT to choose to behave rather than simply how, by way of their nature, they do behave, then we get into a discussion of values. I'm not saying values are trivial or always irrational. Having strong values myself, I'm certainly not saying all values are equal. I'm simply pointing out that when you talk about how dear you hold something, how much something means to you, or how much you disapprove of something, then you are speaking of your values.
It is important to distinguish values from observations. Observations help us to understand how the world must work regardless of human opinion. On the other hand, understanding values helps us understand how people make decisions and choose to live, whether as blood thirsty warmongers, or devout Christian monks, or any of a seemingly endless other options.
An example of this distinction is the innocent newborn baby. It cannot have ever made any decisions respecting anyone else's values. If the world consisted of only that baby and one other human, a normal adult, then rights have no relevence in that world because all decisions are unilateral, and no amount of persuasion can have any effect on the baby. There is no conflict of values since there is only one valuer (see FACT#2). What does matter greatly, however, is the immense value that people place in babies. Rights then may come into play between a person who values the baby, and a person who does not (and sadly, there are such people).
Perhaps part of the confusion between rights and values comes from the fact that not only rights are uniquely human, but so is the capacity to judge, and therefore morality. Rights and morality (a manifestation of values) are not the same, but of course, as is observed in FACTS1-3, the manifestation of rights is dependent upon values.
I see I've written too much, and I don't expect you will read it. But there it is, and I'm too tired to delete any of it.