It seems clear that we only have rights that our society agrees to maintain, both positive and negative rights. This is most obvious with women in the modern era, but certainly throughout history there are numerous examples of people being denied what you might consider to be a right. What then is a right if it is so easily violated and if entire societies can deny their existence?

There seems to be some kind of disconnect here, as if we are discussing two completely separate matters. You seem to not accept, one some fundamental level, the actual fact that morality, rights, or what have you, is not real, in the sense that it is only happening in our heads. The only reality of these concepts is the one our actions make of them.

> So all one has to do is imagine a different set of rights (say the right to do wrong) and then you have no rights

Well yes, this is kind of the reality of the human condition, see Ukraine for real life examples. Okay, this is kind of a snarky response, as I get the point you're truly trying to make. The problem is that this rebuttal is a non sequitur to the argument I have made. You speak of what rights are, where they come from, and you ask me to answer what happens if they conflict. All of this language implies that you truly do not accept the fundamental reality of the situation we're in, the true fact that rights do not exist outside of our minds. No matter how much you say "unalienable" and argue about social contracts will change this fact. It almost seems silly to point this out, it is such an obvious premise to any moral discussion. But the language that you are using gives the impression that you think the word "rights" refers to some fundamental law in the universe that you can discover if you argue well enough. You speak of rights as if you adhere to Platos theory of form, as if having a really good definition of the word will somehow make it reality. All I can do is to read the words that you write, and this is the impression that they give me.

Look, I think we can all agree that morality is pretty great. And I think we can all agree that moral systems are a necessary keystone in the creation of well functioning groups of human beings. I'm personally a big fan of rights! I think they are a good basis for a lot of good things.

But even the most basic tenets that underpin moral systems get pretty murky when you start to take them too seriously. "Suffering is bad" might seem like a no-brainer until you find EAs arguing about what to do about the "wild animal problem". What you are doing is taking much hazier concepts like "social contract" and "legitimacy", and saying ipso facto rights exist. I guess your argument is logically constructed, but I am not arguing against it's internal logic, I am saying that its fundamental underpinnings hold no basis in reality.

>So all one has to do is imagine a different set of rights (say the right to do wrong) and then you have no rights. All this is is "what if we both happened to imagine the same rights?" But what if we don't? What if we had the conflict of John and Bill as discussed in the piece? Do we then not have rights?

yes?

how do you think morals are defined and chosen by societies? through popularity and force.

ie if socialist authoritarism had successfully beaten and replaced capitalist democracy across the globe then it would be considered moral by the majority.