Rights are not principles per se and should not be treated as such for good reason. The idea of ‘rights’ does not stand alone but exists as part of a hierarchy starting, not with rights, but with ‘meaning’ at the foundation. The hierarchy pyramid has meaning at the bottom, after which follows principle which sits on top of meaning and liberty on principle and rights on top of liberty.
This puts ‘rights’ directly in our line of sight, being on top, so we think about them the most. This is why rights are so easily used by politicians to evoke an emotional reaction in a group of potential voters.
If liberty is an effect of the cause known as ‘principle’ and principle is an effect of meaning, then meaning is necessary for a lasting, effective principle or set of principles and effective liberty is dependent upon lasting principles, not fading ones.
The principle in question is that all men are equal. The meaning comes from the idea that ‘God created’ all men equal. If the premise ‘God created’ is true, then the conclusion all men are equal is objectively true. Therefore the existence of God is the anchor of the moral principle that we are equal and gives meaning to it.
If God does not exist, there is no real anchor for the idea that we are all equal since we weren’t created that way. Mere evolution provides no basis for equality among sexes, races, peoples or even blood types or any other criteria. We can make no assumptions about our alleged state of equality except to assume it for its own sake. But to do so is fiction. It renders meaningless the hierarchy starting with meaning then principle, liberty and rights because it removes meaning and the remaining upper pyramid sits on nothing. There is no foundation for rights.
We must examine the foundation of our beliefs concerning rights. But this examination goes in the opposite direction as well. With the existence of objective meaning (given from God’s existence) comes certain implications for the rest of the pyramid. Namely, that our liberty is real and not an arbitrary fiction maintained by any governmental body or political organization. Our rights then are not entirely ephemeral and should not be used in fading fashions and purely argumentative disputes. They should not be used to create less tangible rights constantly redefined by or for the groups they are intended to protect. Rights should be as immovable as the rest of the pyramid and new rights should be drawn from the underlying pyramid. If there is no relationship between a newly proposed ‘right’ and the principle of actual liberty (given from actual equality) it should be rejected or at least meticulously examined in how it affects liberty. Its origins also should be carefully considered. If a new right’s origins are not from the revolutionary idea that liberty is actual liberty, just what are its origins, and would its acceptance ultimately deny actual liberty no matter how good it sounds?
Mind your bee's wax, carefully 