To my mind, this most excellent essay illustrates the problematic nature of basing justice on “positive” rights, what can also be called a priori Rights — Rights that are said to have been discovered by people, not established by people.

One problem is the source of such Rights. One can believe either that they are from God or that they are inherent in the nature of human being or that they ‘just are’. Regardless, it is impossible to ‘prove’ rationally that any such Rights exist.

As the author demonstrated, basing justice on such Rights inevitably gives rise to interpretation, which inevitably generates conflict. Conflict arises in trying to determine what is or isn’t a “Right” as well as attempting to establish precedence among such Rights when behaviors inhering in different Rights generate conflict.

In the end, establishing a just society on the basis of such Rights is no different than basing it on ‘righteousness’ would be. Whose definition of righteousness would be used, and why? No person could ever answer that question in any impersonal way; it would always come down to a matter of personal belies. It is the same with a priori Rights.

Justice — real justice — cannot be based on beliefs. It can only follow from observation within material existence. Even then, it must allow for individuals’ differing experiences of existence.