system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I do not believe in "natural rights". CMV

Rights are entirely a social construct. They only exist in the context of a community that accepts and enforces them.

I think the claim of "natural" rights is actually somewhat disingenuous in a political discussion because it implies that your personal moral values are somehow an objective law of nature, beyond debate and criticism. But this is not true.

Rights are ultimately a moral code, making them inherently subjective, and do not exist outside of a society that implements them.
gpt
Imagine a man walks into a doctor's office for a checkup. The doctor has 5 patients who all need different organ transplants in order to live through the night, and the man just happens to be a perfect match as a donor. The man declines donating his organs voluntarily because it would spell his death, and there is no other way to get transplants before the patients die. Would it be morally permissible for the doctor to harvest the man's organs to save the 5 lives? We have a powerful intuition that this would be impermissible. This suggests that there are certain things we cannot do to innocent individuals, regardless of the outcome (in this situation, saving 5 other innocent lives) - there are certain actions which, in any properly defined situation, are just taken off the table as options because of what they involve doing to persons. But this is all that a right is. This isn't based off of a descriptive observation (hence, it doesn't attempt to bridge the is-ought gap as you've mentioned elsewhere) and it requires no reference to the society in which the individuals live in order for us to reach our conclusion.