Most of us can agree with the fact that everyone should have a right to live. — rayofsunshine

The right to live seems problematic because we can die at any time from illness of accident. You could restate it as the right not to be murdered.

It seems that rights are an expression of humans desires. We can define what we think are reasonable desires and then make a commitment to help further this desire.

I don't think they exist outside of human communities though.

I tend to be a positivist about these kinds of questions so I would say you have a right if and only if there exists a law (and/or an interpretation of that law) that confers such a right. In other words, there are no "natural rights."

We as humans have a ton of rights and our society nowadays is basically built on rights and rules (or laws) concerning these rights. — rayofsunshine

Easy to say. Start a list of them. See how far you get. To make it easy, just include the rights you think are, or should be, absolute. And see if you can start with a decent working definition of what a right is.

Rights are something we "invent," basically. I'm not saying that we sit down and intentionally invent them. They're a natural way for us to think/to feel about things.

Rights are basically moral stances that we feel so strongly about that we see it as an inexcusable affront for them to be denied legally and practically. They're moral stances that we see as inviolable.

We justify them the way we justify any moral stance--largely via ad hoc reasoning build on top of what are essentially emotional dispositions.

Rights are something we "invent," — Terrapin Station

Maybe discover? Certainly articulating them involves the creation of the particular expression of them, but invention seems to introduce problems. If rights are invented, what constrains what might be invented?

What do you mean by "ad hoc" reasoning?

What seems to be missing in your definition is the role of reason in rights. In part I can agree with you: we start with a feeling that "seems" natural. But it's reason that allows us to refine and elevate some of our feelings to the status of being foundational for rights. Or, rather, once the rights are determined, we can examine our feelings to see if they are in accordance with the right - and sometimes we have to change how we feel, yes?

Maybe discover? Certainly articulating them involves the creation of the particular expression of them, but invention seems to introduce problems. If rights are invented, what constrains what might be invented? — tim wood

You've got to continue on to the next sentence:

I'm not saying that we sit down and intentionally invent them. They're a natural way for us to think/to feel about things. — Terrapin Station

The reason that sentence followed the first was to stave off the confusion you're heading towards.

What do you mean by "ad hoc" reasoning? — tim wood

The normal definition of ad hoc. The feelings/intuitions come first. The reasoning is ad hoc in support of it.

We invent our feelings? Then we justify/rationalize them until they become rights? Is this it?

Which rights are you thinking of? Those listed in the Bill of Rights, or those listed in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (passed by UN in 1948)?

The list of universal human rights is inspiring, but is meaningless unless the rights are obtainable, defendable, and actually observed by everyone. Seems kind of dubious. Here's the list. The list is clearly the work of a committee.

* Marriage and Family. Every grown-up has the right to marry and have a family if they want to. Men and women have the same rights when they are married, and when they are separated.
* The Right to Your Own Things. Everyone has the right to own things or share them. Nobody should take our things from us without a good reason.
* Freedom of Thought. We all have the right to believe in what we want to believe, to have a religion, or to change it if we want.
* Freedom of Expression. We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people.
* The Right to Public Assembly. We all have the right to meet our friends and to work together in peace to defend our rights. Nobody can make us join a group if we don’t want to.
* The Right to Democracy. We all have the right to take part in the government of our country. Every grown-up should be allowed to choose their own leaders.
* Social Security. We all have the right to affordable housing, medicine, education, and childcare, enough money to live on and medical help if we are ill or old.
* Workers’ Rights. Every grown-up has the right to do a job, to a fair wage for their work, and to join a trade union.
* The Right to Play. We all have the right to rest from work and to relax.
* Food and Shelter for All. We all have the right to a good life. Mothers and children, people who are old, unemployed or disabled, and all people have the right to be cared for.
* The Right to Education. Education is a right. Primary school should be free. We should learn about the United Nations and how to get on with others. Our parents can choose what we learn.
* Copyright. Copyright is a special law that protects one’s own artistic creations and writings; others cannot make copies without permission. We all have the right to our own way of life and to enjoy the good things that art, science and learning bring.
* A Fair and Free World. There must be proper order so we can all enjoy rights and freedoms in our own country and all over the world.
* Responsibility. We have a duty to other people, and we should protect their rights and freedoms.
* No One Can Take Away Your Human Rights.***

***Want to bet on that?

I think rights should perhaps be viewed as preferences that must be respected legally or morally. You can think about the Golden rule, for example. We should treat others how we would like to be treated to some extent because we all benefit if we all agree to do this simultaneously. This allows us to create trust and form a small society. But, what happens when you treat someone how you would like to be treated but they don't like how you are treating them? For example, imagine that a man wants to be euthanized because he hates his life. Does that mean it would be ok for him to euthanize someone else under the Golden Rule? Well, not exactly. There's a bit of a paradox in the Golden Rule. The suicidal man might wish to be euthanized but he does not wish to have one of his preferences violated. Therefore, he wouldn't be following the Golden Rule if he euthanized an unconsenting individual. Because one has to respect the other persons preference to follow the Golden Rule unparadoxically, we could reframe the Golden Rule as "treat others how THEY wish to be treated". In other words, give everyone what they want. But, of course, we cannot give everyone what they want and so we can't follow that rule completely. It appears to be more reasonable to require that people don't give people what they don't want instead. In other words, one ought not to violate the preference of others by an act of commission(although one is not obligated to perform an act of commission to satisfy one's preferences). Over time, we made a list of preferences that we think should never be violated by an act of commission. These include:
-The preference to utter any statement or no statement at all(The Right to Free Speech)
-The preference to practice any religion or no religion at all(The Right to Religion)
-The preference to not be murdered(The Right to Life)
-The preference to not be enslaved(The Right to Freedom)

I know this isn't probably the whole explanation for human rights but I think it's a good start. In conclusion, human rights are a byproduct of a collective human desire to exist with one another in peace and harmony. We all benefit by avoiding the unjust violation of anyone's preferences and we wish that no one would violate ours unjustly

We invent our feelings? Then we justify/rationalize them until they become rights? Is this it? — tim wood

You're the source of your feelings, your dispositions. You don't buy them from a kiosk in the mall and then plug them in.

We don't justify/rationalize them "until they become rights." The stances come first, the feeling that something should be a right, should be inviolable. The justifications/rationalizations come after that fact.

Humans having rights is a very smart way to organize the society we live in.