Agree. That's why I believe this is really a semantic issue. If one is used to viewing rights as legal fictions only there is no reason for them to add a category of natural rights to it. It isn't necessary.Denying the right doesn't work naturally, but saying that everybody can exercise the right naturally doesn't work either. Rights ARE meaningless, precisely because their realization is both completely theoretical AND socially undesireable, given current human nature. If everyone was given liberty, we would have violent psychopaths roaming the street etc.
All that ethical realism is categorizing as natural rights are quintessential expressions of humanity that cannot be suppressed in the individual as long as they are supported via contract or a non imposing expression of self. You can make legal fictions against alcohol, sex, masturbation, and personal freedom but you cannot stop them from arising and finding expression as a result. Ethical realism simply attempts to identify these forces and promote a natural state of *freedom* towards them regardless of what you would like to call them.
Last edited: