The moral realist claims that there is a core set of moral principles that are objective, so we would not accept your statement that morality in total is subjective.
I find that point of view completely unsupported and, quite frankly, absurd on the face of it. I don't say this to denigrate the view - I know that many people take it. I'm just trying to illustrate how unsupported I think it is.
As far as the emergent properties are concerned, you have a right to pursue them to the degree you make contract for them.
Sorry, I'm not sure what "to the degree you make contract for them" means in this context. Could you expand?
These are some of the core human issues that regardless of any legal fiction to suppress them, they will express themselves anyway.
Of course. But does the desire for (say) sex make it a right? How about the desire to live? What does it even mean to say that I have a right to life while I'm being chased by a bear? What does it mean to say that I have a right to eat if I'm stranded in the Sahara?
I think that's, at bottom, my problem with rights. Unless they are actually explicitly granted/ensured by some governing body, I don't think that expressing them means anything more than "I think I/you should be able to...".
Perhaps I should put it to you. What is the difference between these two statements:
- I believe that every person should be free to act as they will without harming another
- Every person has the right to be free to act as they will without harming another