We like to speak magnanimously of a “right to life”, but as the forthcoming Salon interviewee put it (and I’m paraphrasing), “What does a virus know or care about that?”. Does anyone reading this really think that sputtering “I have a right to life!!” will stop a mountain lion attack? Why would it be any different for the [relatively few] genuine human predators amongst us?

Rights are the flip side to obligations. Viruses and mountain lions have no obligations toward you. Other humans have a moral obligation not to murder you. That is your right to life.

People have a moral obligation not to take things from you that you justly own. That is your (moral) right to property. The government enforces a legal obligation of other people not to take things from you that the government says you own. That is your legal right to property.

etc.

Rights are only illusory "bubbles" when you forget that they're shorthand for an obligation on other people. "The complete rejection of the concept of rights," insofar as it entails the complete rejection of any obligations of one person to another, leads to quite the opposite of a psychologically healthy environment.

I do agree, however, that the Golden Rule (enforced on each person largely by his or her internal judgment) is not a burdensome obligation, and would lead to a good society.

Peace,
-Gabe