You're asking good 101 questions about rights[0]. I wish more people asked them because it's important to have a clear idea about what rights are and what they

You're asking good 101 questions about rights[0]. I wish more people asked them because it's important to have a clear idea about what rights are and what they are grounded in. The social constructivist view seems to be having its heyday[1], producing all sorts of strange sui generis "rights" untethered from anything real, but there is much to be said about the natural law grounding of natural rights (as opposed to mere legal rights, or even the legal recognition of natural rights) which is then a matter of recognizing them. This is a realist view. But if you're looking for natural rights you can perceive through your senses (which you have indicated elsewhere in this thread), then you have a bad understanding of reality. You already believe in a number of intangible "things" which you've never perceived...like the notion that things must be perceivable through the senses to be considered real. This is a principle, a false principle, but something that is nonetheless taken by you to be true about reality. Otherwise, what are you even talking about? [0] But you're also asking a question that's a bit out of context. We are appealing to endoxa and the violations of privacy we are witnessing are unjustified given the general agreement about privacy as a right. [1] Not to nitpick since the essential question still stands, but since you mentioned the Holy See... > declares the right to eternal salvation, and mandates that every state submit to the authority of the holy see. Catholics do not believe they have a right to salvation. Salvation is a gratuitous gift of God, in fact so gratuitous that good works alone cannot deserve it and faith is needed.