I'm not impressed by this article. The author talks a lot about what he says is a desirable way to think, but fails to actually think that way. For example: "

I'm not impressed by this article. The author talks a lot about what he says is a desirable way to think, but fails to actually think that way. For example: "My Why You’re Christian essay demonstrates the process I use to interrogate my ideas." So I go look at that essay, which can be summed up quite simply by quoting its last line: "Ultimately, there are two ways to justify a belief in human rights: you can either construct a bottom-up, rational argument, or you can surrender to the supreme word of God." And the whole essay is spent agonizing about the second option, without ever even discussing the first. Not only is the author apparently unaware of all the literature on constructing bottom-up, rational arguments for human rights (not to mention many other common values), he hasn't even tried to come up with one himself. Has it never even occurred to him that one obvious argument for human rights is that societies that respect them are better places to live?