[lucideer]

I really don't understand this line of logic on fundamental rights. If you're referring to the UDHR, it's a piece of paper put together by Eleanor Roosevelt a little over half a century ago. It's a human document of arbitrary concepts put together by people who believed enforcing those would improve the world in aggregate.

The idea of basing our sense of right on what is law, rather than basing the laws we write on our sense of right seems to be bafflingly common.

[dredmorbius]

Re your final sentence, there's a possible third option (though your second has merits): coming up with both rules (law) and guidance (rights, ethics, morality) based on what improves the overall common weal.

Another archaic concept, I fear, most days.

[lucideer]

I guess I was conflating the latter two...

In my mind:

ethics = definition of what improves the common weal

law (should)= enforcement of said ethics

[dredmorbius]

Hrm. I'm wondering now if there's a possible ethical case for actions which don't improve the common weal. Or how to resolve conflicts between short-term present vs. long-term future outcomes, or other conflicts -- say, you classic Trolley Problem.

I also wanted to note that your dismissal of Fundamental Rights is a good point. I'm finding far more agreement with the Pragmatists (Dewey, James, etc.) than various Natural / Fundamental Rightists. If only because any idiot can jump up and claim "This is My Fundamental Right" and ... all rational discussion stops.