all rights are arbitrary, including their own right to life.
This, essentially, is my position. I don't mind rights being arbitrary,as long as they aren't capricious. I ask for internal consistency.
There may be good pragmatic reasons for establishing certain rights as a matter of consensus, given the current state of things, but there's nothing inescapable about them. Different circumstances would call for different rights.
I have no objection to the principles stated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and indeed approve of them, but for pragmatic reasons, because they allow me to live a comfortable life in a stable society and through habitual familiarity, instill a mindset that increases the probability of others having the same attitudes and acting in accordance with them. The justification in terms of natural law, though is IMHO, drivel. Natural law is imaginary and we have societal laws and social conventions, precisely because
it is imaginary. If the right to liberty were natural and inalienable, it would be no more possible to enslave somebody than for water to flow uphill spontaneously.
"An object remains at rest or moves with a constant velocity unless acted upon by a resultant force." is a law of nature.
Irish statute and case law are societal laws.
"All men are created free and equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." isn't a law of any kind. It is an opinion.