[dredmorbius]

This is strongly jurisdiction-dependent.

US patent and copyright derive from A1S8C8 of the US constitution, "to promote science and useful arts".

Much EU law derives from a French tradition based on droight d'auteur, or moral rights.

International copyright code (Berne Convention) rips and mashes from both traditions.

[int_19h]

A law claiming that something is a "moral right" doesn't make it so, though.

Just as e.g. sodomy laws claiming that something is immoral doesn't make it so.

[dredmorbius]

I'd agree with this.

The point I was addressing was whether or not copyright is grounded in moral rights, and as my earlier response notes, it depends on jurisdiction and foundations.

That said, I've come to a general view that moralising of pathologies or other behaviours is often highly counterproductive. Medicine progressed little when illness, disease, or dysfunction were rationalised as will of gods or divine retribution. Germ theory and other causal etiologies broke that dam. Left-handedness was widely viewed as literally malevolent, a sign of the devil. Which did little to prevent the condition, and greatly hampered opportunities and life-paths of the roughly 10% of the population which is left handed. Oppression of LGBTQIX+ individuals is often presented as a similar situation. Mental health and illness still carry strong moralising-of-pathology overtones, though the situation's improving. Justice and penal systems are presented by some as another such case (see in particular Robert Sapolsky).

Back to copyright and patent: both foundations, authorial/inventor support and moral rights strike me as grossly flawed in both grounding and consequence.