Rights Are Fragile
A critical misstep in society is the assumption that rights—human rights included—are an impenetrable shield or wall we can hide behind. This belief, repeated so often, tends to blend into the background noise of our lives, adding to the steady undercurrent of unease and steady drip of cortisol (a stress hormone).
Consider this widely accepted definition from Wikipedia:
"Human rights are universally recognized moral principles or norms that establish standards of human behavior and are often protected by both national and international laws."
Let’s unpack this.
The Fragility of “Universal Recognition”
Rights are described as “universally recognized moral principles.” This implies a collective agreement so strong it establishes a standard. However, this requirement is inherently fragile. It means that for any right to exist, it relies on widespread consensus that it holds value and necessity. One piece of evidence is in the necessity of “protection by” laws, which is also a construct based on everyone agreeing.
History proves how tenuous this consensus can be. Empires have decimated smaller civilizations, replacing their principles with new ones. Entire nations have been formed by breaking away from such systems—closest to home and mind, the United States. The Declaration of Independence boldly proclaimed:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
At the time, the term “all men” was far narrower than it is today. Over centuries, societal struggles broadened this definition to include all humans. But even now, agreement on what this truly means remains more controversial than in recent memory.
Conflicting Interpretations of Rights
A supporter of MAGA ideology, a devoutly religious individual, and an atheist may each interpret “all men are created equal” in dramatically different ways.
MAGA supporters may view certain groups as “vermin,” implying an inherent hierarchy where some humans are deemed less than others.
Religious perspectives often involve hierarchies that suggest not all people are equally capable or deserving, with language that dehumanizes others as “the devil” or “demons.”
Atheists, meanwhile, may lean toward a view that all humans hold equal worth, value, and potential, grounded in shared humanity rather than divine or ideological hierarchies, yet see that only true after a human draws their first breath on their own.
These disparities reveal a troubling truth: rights are not EVER inherent. They must be defended, articulated, and continually tested to remain valid.
The Natural Order and the Human Contradiction
In nature, such divisions would be alien. Imagine observing lizards or monkeys behaving like MAGA adherents, turning on their own kind with cruelty or exclusionary rituals. We’d study such behavior, asking what was biologically or socially wrong with them.
If lemurs were seen exploiting or torturing members of their community based on arbitrary, non-evidential beliefs, it would strike us as fundamentally unnatural**. Yet humans engage in such behaviors routinely.
Rights Demand Vigilance
Rights are not self-sustaining. They exist only as long as we cherish, protect, and uphold them. They have no substance without collective belief giving them form, weight, and consequence.
As we navigate turbulent times—especially under leaders who disregard foundational rights—remember this:
Saying, “You have no right,” to someone who does not recognize that thing as your right, as you do, is meaningless. At the time of the holocaust there were Germans that didn’t see themselves as killing humans.
You should plan to enforce your definition against those that would do it harm. To protect what is fragile, we must be disciplined, consistent, and intellectually honest. Rights require more than passive belief—they demand active and vigilant defense.
- JS
** Yes, I know about dolphins and pigeons.