Better foundations? You mean utilitarianism? That's a dead end too.
As a monkey-troup-descended race, we operate on some pretty common and predictable impulses. To manage those impulses we establish some premises and call them rights. Right to life, liberty etc.
Call them something else than 'natural rights' if you must, but its folly to ignore their existance.
Better foundations? You mean utilitarianism? That's a dead end too.
Currently, utilitarianism does seem to have problems, but not every framework for measuring or improving social well-being will necessarily share the problems of utilitarianism. One promising approach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach.
...we operate on some pretty common and predictable impulses. To manage those impulses we establish some premises and call them rights. Right to life, liberty etc.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that rights are something separate from natural impulses; they are things that we use appropriately manage (or channel) those impulses. I basically agree. But: "manage" must mean some goal that is separate from the impulses themselves, and when we establish rights that we think will appropriately direct impulses towards some goal, those rights--whether inspired by science or theology--cannot be considered natural. They are human guesses, subject to scrutiny, discussion, and improvement--to call them natural is untrue and confusing.
As a monkey-troup-descended race, we operate on some pretty common and predictable impulses. To manage those impulses we establish some premises and call them rights. Right to life, liberty etc.
Call them something else than 'natural rights' if you must, but its folly to ignore their existance.