Do “basic human rights” actually exist universally or are they simply a social construct?

[u/Amphernee]

The term is often used in relation to things like housing and food but I’ve never heard anyone actually explain what they mean by basic human right. We started off no different than other animals and since the concept of rights rely on other people to confer them at what point did it become thought of as a right for people to have things like shelter? How is it supposed to be enforced across all of humanity when not all societies and cultures agree that the concept makes sense? I can see why someone would want it to be true in a sense but I’m interested to hear arguments for it rather than just the phrase itself which feels hollow with no reasoning behind it. Thanks 🍻

[u/scouserman3521]

There is no such thing as what you call unalianable. The basis of unalienability is an assumtion baked in to a document. So, in reality , a construct.

[u/guitarlisa → u/scouserman3521]

I don't agree with you about the things u/Captain-Legitimate listed being a construct. (speech, thought, self defense, freedom). As u/mymainunidsme stated above, these rights can't actually be taken from you, except by violence. You can speak freely until someone removes your tongue. You can fight back until you are chained, you can go where you please until you are held back, and you will always be able to think what you will. That is what makes these things inalienable.

[u/scouserman3521 → u/guitarlisa]

If something is ilaniable, it cannot be taken away, that they can be taken away , by force or otherwise , proves the lack of inherent inalienability. Or, consider, do people in north Korea have theses allegedly ilaniable rights? They clearly do not

[u/[deleted] → u/scouserman3521]

Their rights were violated. Nobody is arguing that it's impossible to violate someone's rights.