Taq writes:
Are fairness and empathy arbitrary? I don't think so, but perhaps you do.
I think a sense of fairness and empathy are both accurately described as universal human traits.
The
Golden Rule which I mentioned earlier is effectively a reasoned expression of these things and about as close to a "universal" basis for morality as I think you can get.
The problem is that who fairness and empathy are applied to and exactly how they are applied in terms of "rights" is very much a social/cultural thing. It is far from "universal" in the inalienable timeless and culture independent sort of way you seem to mean when you talk about "natural rights".
In what sense can I possess such rights if nobody knows what they are? And what makes "human rights" so inalienable? Do gorillas have inalienable rights too? Do intelligent aliens?
I'm still sympathetic to the idea of constructing a set of rights that can be reasoned and implemented on a large scale based on broad consensus with that reasoning. I'd even be happy to call these "universal" rights.
But the idea that humans specifically have some sort of special claim to rights that are independent of human society still seems like a rather arbitrary assertion on your part.